BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Cohort Study
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
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    Male32 (18.1)46 (23.8)0.1752
    Female145 (81.9)147 (76.2)
Diagnosis    OA144 (82.4)151 (78.2)0.5152
    RA33 (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°)Within116 (65.5)123 (63.7)0.80321.08 (0.72-1.63)
Outside 61 (34.5)70 (36.3)
MPTA (degrees)Measurement88.90 ± 2.61 (78 to 95)89.43 ± 2.71 (80 to 98)0.0561
Safe zone (90° to 87°)Within95 (53.7)90 (41.4)0.0222,a1.63 (1.08-2.48)
Outside82 (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)0.76320.92 (0.55-1.53)
Outside38 (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 numberGroup D88 (46.8)89 (48.9)0.6871
Group N100 (53.2)93 (51.1)
MPTA (degrees), mean ± SD (range)Group D88.86 ± 3.26 (78 to 95)88.93 ± 1.76 (84 to 93)0.8621
Group N88.56 ± 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 D32 (36.4)56 (63.6)63 (70.8)26 (29.2)0.0012,a4.24 (2.26-7.96)
Group N43 (43)57 (57)37 (39.8)56 (60.2)0.65021.19 (0.68-2.09)
P value0.35320.0012,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)377351OneRight-handedNRNRNRKnee 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)5050OneRight-handed1.9 ± 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)10298Four2 right-handed, and 2 left-handed1For 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 DNR
Current study, (2025)370 (370)177193FiveRight-handed177.96 ± 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)