Copyright
©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Orthop. Feb 18, 2026; 17(2): 113696
Published online Feb 18, 2026. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v17.i2.113696
Published online Feb 18, 2026. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v17.i2.113696
Table 1 Basic characteristics of included patients, n (%)
| Variables | Group D (n = 177) | Group N (n = 193) | P value | |
| Age (years), mean ± SD (range) | 57.87 ± 9.16 (29 to 77) | 58.54 ± 8.50 (30 to 76) | 0.2321 | |
| Gender | Male | 32 (18.1) | 46 (23.8) | 0.1752 |
| Female | 145 (81.9) | 147 (76.2) | ||
| Diagnosis | OA | 144 (82.4) | 151 (78.2) | 0.5152 |
| RA | 33 (18.6) | 42 (21.2) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD (range) | 24.7 ± 3.1 (18.9-34.1) | 23.7 ± 3.3 (18.9-33.5) | 0.2451 | |
Table 2 Comparison of coronal alignment between both sides, n (%)
| Radiographic parameters | Group D (n = 177) | Group N (n = 193) | P value | OR (95%CI) | ||
| HKA (degrees) | Preoperative, mean ± SD (range) | 167.88 ± 9.34 (142 to 195) | 167.94 ± 8.82 (141 to 195) | 0.9561 | ||
| Postoperative, mean ± SD (range) | 177.96 ± 3.13 (165 to 186) | 178.55 ± 3.38 (170 to 187) | 0.0821 | |||
| P value | < 0.0011 | < 0.0011 | ||||
| Safe zone (180° ± 3°) | Within | 116 (65.5) | 123 (63.7) | 0.8032 | 1.08 (0.72-1.63) | |
| Outside | 61 (34.5) | 70 (36.3) | ||||
| MPTA (degrees) | Measurement | 88.90 ± 2.61 (78 to 95) | 89.43 ± 2.71 (80 to 98) | 0.0561 | ||
| Safe zone (90° to 87°) | Within | 95 (53.7) | 90 (41.4) | 0.0222,a | 1.63 (1.08-2.48) | |
| Outside | 82 (46.3) | 113 (58.5) | ||||
| mLDFA (degrees) | Measurement, mean ± SD (range) | 90.16 ± 2.54 (81 to 98) | 89.76 ± 2.53 (82 to 101) | 0.1401 | ||
| Safe zone (90° ± 3°), mean ± SD (range) | Within | 139 (78.5) | 154 (79.8) | 0.7632 | 0.92 (0.55-1.53) | |
| Outside | 38 (21.5) | 39 (20.2) | ||||
Table 3 Comparing the methods used for tibial component insertion, n (%)
| IM (188 patients) | EM (182 patients) | P value | OR (95%CI) | ||||
| Total number | Group D | 88 (46.8) | 89 (48.9) | 0.6871 | |||
| Group N | 100 (53.2) | 93 (51.1) | |||||
| MPTA (degrees), mean ± SD (range) | Group D | 88.86 ± 3.26 (78 to 95) | 88.93 ± 1.76 (84 to 93) | 0.8621 | |||
| Group N | 88.56 ± 3.00 (80 to 98) | 90.38 ± 1.99 (84 to 95) | 0.0011,a | ||||
| Safe zone 90° to 87° | Within | Outside | Within | Outside | |||
| Group D | 32 (36.4) | 56 (63.6) | 63 (70.8) | 26 (29.2) | 0.0012,a | 4.24 (2.26-7.96) | |
| Group N | 43 (43) | 57 (57) | 37 (39.8) | 56 (60.2) | 0.6502 | 1.19 (0.68-2.09) | |
| P value | 0.3532 | 0.0012,a | |||||
| OR (95%CI) | 1.32 (0.73 to 2.38) | 3.67 (1.98 to 6.80) | |||||
Table 4 Summary of the results reported in the previous studies
| Ref. | Number of patients (knees) | Dominant side | Non-dominant side | Number of surgeons | Surgeons’ handedness | Radiological (dominant vs non-dominant) | Functional (dominant vs non-dominant) | ||
| HKA | MPTA | LDFA | |||||||
| Mehta and Lotke[27] | 688 (728) | 377 | 351 | One | Right-handed | NR | NR | NR | Knee extension 1.25 vs 1.75 (P = 0.19), KS function 73.5 vs 70.5 (P = 0.03), KS pain 95 vs 87 (P = 0.029) |
| Liu et al[28] | 86 (100) | 50 | 50 | One | Right-handed | 1.9 ± 4.4 vs 2.3 ± 3.8 (P = 0.634) | 90.0 ± 2.5 vs 90.1 ± 2.6 (P = 0.855) | 88.6 ± 2.8 vs 88.4 ± 2.5 (P = 0.616) | HSS score was 87.2 ± 4.3 vs 86.8 ± 5.0 (P = 0.639). |
| Jaglarz et al[30] | 200 (200) | 102 | 98 | Four | 2 right-handed, and 2 left-handed1 | For the right-handed surgeons: No difference in the radiological outcomes regardless of the side of surgery and regardless of their standing position during surgery. For the left-handed surgeons: A significant difference in the HKA [-1.5 (-2.6 to -1) vs -3 (-4.5 to -2), P = 0.01] for surgeon B. A significant difference in the MPTA [0 (-1 to 0.5) vs 1 (0-2), P < 0.01] for surgeon D | NR | ||
| Current study, (2025) | 370 (370) | 177 | 193 | Five | Right-handed | 177.96 ± 3.13 vs 178.55 ± 3.38, (P = 0.082) | 88.90 ± 2.61 vs 89.43 ± 2.71, (P = 0.056) | 90.16 ± 2.54 vs 89.76 ± 2.53, (P = 0.140) | KSS: 80.59 ± 14.73 vs 79.56 ± 15.64 (P = 0.628) |
- Citation: Khalifa AA, Abdelaal AM, Moustafa MM. Does surgeon handedness affect the outcomes after primary total knee arthroplasty? A retrospective cohort study. World J Orthop 2026; 17(2): 113696
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v17/i2/113696.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v17.i2.113696
