RESULTS: There was a significant difference between templating (59%) and CAIG (92%) method (P=0.0001). In the Chinese algorithm, height based on gender and tibial size both have greater accuracy of prediction (88% and 70.7%) than the Oxford algorithm (51.1% and 59.8%). Component size distribution and optimal tibial/femoral pairing differed from those in the Oxford report.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the Chinese algorithm can greatly improve the accuracy of prediction of femoral component size. In addition, CAIG-assisted implantation of a UKR is a reliable intra-operative tool and can aid size selection of the femoral component.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

PMID: 23890472 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Read more... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890472?dopt=Abstract