Agreement and Systematic Differences Between Intraoperative ROSA Hip-Knee-Ankle Measurements and Standing Radiographic Alignment After Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Agreement Study

Background/Objectives: Intraoperative robotic hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) measurements are obtained with the patient supine under operative conditions and may not directly represent postoperative standing weight-bearing alignment. This study quantified the correspondence and systematic differences between intraoperative ROSA HKA and standing radiographic HKA after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 208 knees from 178 consecutive patients, including 30 bilateral patients. The primary comparison was post-trial-component intraoperative ROSA HKA versus postoperative standing radiographic HKA; the secondary comparison was pre-cut intraoperative ROSA HKA versus preoperative standing radiographic HKA. Patient-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals used 10,000 resamples. Agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis, absolute-agreement ICC(A,1), and weighted kappa; Spearman ρ described association. Results: For the primary comparison, mean bias (ROSA minus radiographic HKA) was −1.75° (95% CI −2.08 to −1.43°), conventional limits of agreement were −6.36° to 2.85°, and ICC(A,1) was 0.472 (95% CI 0.379 to 0.557). Differences were within 3° in 70.2% of knees and exceeded 3° in 29.8%; proportional bias was present (slope −0.569, p < 0.001). The secondary comparison showed bias 0.97° and ICC(A,1) 0.956. Exact femoral and tibial size agreement was 42.3% and 80.8%, respectively. The standardized surgeon-entered 10 mm starting value was retained in 57.7% of knees. These systematic and angle-dependent differences may partly reflect the differing loading, positioning, and measurement conditions between the intraoperative trial construct and postoperative standing radiography. Conclusions: Post-trial-component ROSA HKA showed systematic and angle-dependent differences from postoperative standing HKA and should not be considered interchangeable with, or a fixed patient-level predictor of, postoperative standing alignment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2026-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15197432
Primary Topic
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Agreement and Systematic Differences Between Intraoperative ROSA Hip-Knee-Ankle Measurements and Standing Radiographic Alignment After Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Agreement Study

Wei‐Cheng Tseng, Cheng‐Chi Wang, Chung‐Yuh Tzeng, Kao‐Chang Tu et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
article

Agreement and Systematic Differences Between Intraoperative ROSA Hip-Knee-Ankle Measurements and Standing Radiographic Alignment After Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Agreement Study

Wei‐Cheng Tseng, Cheng‐Chi Wang, Chung‐Yuh Tzeng, Kao‐Chang Tu, Cheng-Jung Ho, Ching‐Heng Lin, Yu-Tsung Lin, Kun-Hui Chen, Cheng-Hung Lee
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Intraoperative robotic hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) measurements are obtained with the patient supine under operative conditions and may not directly represent postoperative standing weight-bearing alignment. This study quantified the correspondence and systematic differences between intraoperative ROSA HKA and standing radiographic HKA after robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 208 knees from 178 consecutive patients, including 30 bilateral patients. The primary comparison was post-trial-component intraoperative ROSA HKA versus postoperative standing radiographic HKA; the secondary comparison was pre-cut intraoperative ROSA HKA versus preoperative standing radiographic HKA. Patient-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals used 10,000 resamples. Agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis, absolute-agreement ICC(A,1), and weighted kappa; Spearman ρ described association. Results: For the primary comparison, mean bias (ROSA minus radiographic HKA) was −1.75° (95% CI −2.08 to −1.43°), conventional limits of agreement were −6.36° to 2.85°, and ICC(A,1) was 0.472 (95% CI 0.379 to 0.557). Differences were within 3° in 70.2% of knees and exceeded 3° in 29.8%; proportional bias was present (slope −0.569, p < 0.001). The secondary comparison showed bias 0.97° and ICC(A,1) 0.956. Exact femoral and tibial size agreement was 42.3% and 80.8%, respectively. The standardized surgeon-entered 10 mm starting value was retained in 57.7% of knees. These systematic and angle-dependent differences may partly reflect the differing loading, positioning, and measurement conditions between the intraoperative trial construct and postoperative standing radiography. Conclusions: Post-trial-component ROSA HKA showed systematic and angle-dependent differences from postoperative standing HKA and should not be considered interchangeable with, or a fixed patient-level predictor of, postoperative standing alignment.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(19)
Fu Jen Catholic University (TW), National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (TW), Kaohsiung Medical University (TW), National Chung Hsing University (TW), Tunghai University (TW), Providence University (TW), China Medical University (TW), Taichung Veterans General Hospital (TW), Kang-Ning Junior College of Medical Care and Management (TW), Hungkuang University (TW)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.