Table 1.

Comparison of outcomes for JATKR and CATKR procedures for 32 patients. All measurements of prosthetic positioning are in degrees

Measure	CATKR (C)	JATKR (J)	C-J	Significance for C - J
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean difference (95%CI)	df = 22
External rotationa	−2.6	−2.9	0.3	0.67
	(3.1)	(3.2)	(−1.2, 1.8)
Femoral flexionb	0.1	−0.5	0.6	0.22
	(2.3)	(2.7)	(−0.4, 1.6)
Varus/valgus alignment—femoralc	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.66
	(1.8)	(1.7)	(−0.8, 1.2)
Varus/vagal alignment—tibiald	0.1	−0.2	0.3	0.59
	(1.9)	(2.0)	(−0.8, 1.5)
Tibial prosthetic alignmente	4.7	5.0	−0.3	0.71
	(2.7)	(2.9)	(−1.7, 1.2)
Femorotibial mismatchf	−1.8	−4.6	2.7	0.17
	(6.2)	(6.3)	(−1.3, 6.8)

CATKR computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty, JATKR traditional jig-assisted total knee arthroplasty

^a External rotation of femoral prosthetic component relative to transepicondylar axis. Positive values imply degrees of external rotation; negative values imply degrees of internal rotation

^b Flexion of femoral prosthetic component relative to femoral sagittal anatomical axis. Positive values imply degrees of flexion; negative values imply degrees of extension

^c Varus/Valgus alignment of femoral component in relation to mechanical axis of lower limb. Positive values imply degrees of valgus alignment; negative values imply degrees of varus alignment

^d Varus/Valgus alignment of tibial component in relation to mechanical axis of lower limb. Positive values imply degrees of valgus alignment; negative values imply degrees of varus alignment

^e Flexion of tibial prosthetic component relative to tibial sagittal anatomical axis. Positive values imply degrees of posterior slope; negative values imply degrees of anterior slope

^f Femorotibial mismatch—rotation of tibial prosthetic component relative to femoral prosthetic component. Positive values imply degrees of external rotation of tibial prosthesis on femoral prosthesis; negative values imply degrees of internal rotation