The benefits of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty on coronal alignment with marked femoral bowing in Asian patients

Table 1 Demographic and radiographic data from patients in the conventional and CAS groups

Parameters	Group A (n = 55)	Group B (n = 63)	Group C (n = 80)	pvalue
Demographic data
Age at time of operation (year)	75 ± 5	74 ± 6	72 ± 6	0.106
Body height (cm)	151 ± 6	151 ± 6	156 ± 9^a	0.004*
Body weight (kg)	59 ± 8	63 ± 8	67 ± 11^a	0.011*
Body mass index (kg/m²)	26 ± 4	28 ± 4	28 ± 4	0.151
Follow-up (months)	49 ± 27	55 ± 25	50 ± 31	0.629
Perioperative data
Total blood loss (mL)	549 ± 189	612 ± 220	615 ± 311	0.610
Tourniquet time (min)	85 ± 22^a	65 ± 15	69 ± 18	<0.001*
Hospital stay (days)	7 ± 2	7 ± 2	6 ± 1	0.311
Radiographic data, leg axis
Valgus correction angle of the distal femur (°)	11 ± 1	10 ± 1	6 ± 1^a	<0.001*
Coronal femoral bowing angle (°)	11 ± 3	10 ± 2	3 ± 1^a	<0.001*
Preoperative MA (°)	164 ± 4	164 ± 4	166 ± 6	0.143
Postoperative MA (°)	179 ± 2	177 ± 4^a	179 ± 2	<0.001*
Component alignments
Femoral valgus angle (°)	99 ± 1^a	96 ± 2	96 ± 1	<0.001*
Femoral flexion angle (°)	2 ± 1^a	4 ± 3	5 ± 4	0.001*
Tibial valgus angle (°)	90 ± 1	90 ± 2	90 ± 1	0.538
Tibial flexion angle (°)	88 ± 2	88 ± 2	87 ± 2	0.126

Group A: osteoarthritis with marked coronal femoral bowing; all underwent CAS-TKA. Group B: osteoarthritis with marked coronal femoral bowing; all underwent conventional TKA. Group C: osteoarthritis without marked coronal femoral bowing; all underwent conventional TKA. Values are shown as mean ± SD; p values for between-group comparison were determined by one-way ANOVA tests.
Abbreviations: MA mechanical axis, AA anatomic axis.
*Statistically significant (p value < 0.05); ^astatistically significant among groups.

ISSN: 1749-799X