Mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty does not yield uniform outcomes across all coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) phenotypes.

PURPOSE: Patient dissatisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reported in the literature reach 20%. The optimal coronal alignment is still under debate. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare clinical outcomes in different coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) phenotypes undergoing mechanically aligned (MA) TKA. The hypothesis was that knees with preoperative varus arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) would achieve inferior clinical outcomes after surgery compared to other aHKA categories. Additionally, another objective was to assess CPAK phenotypes distribution in the study population. METHODS: A retrospective selection was made of 180 patients who underwent MA TKA from April 2021 to December 2022, with a 1-year follow-up. Coronal knee alignment was classified according to the CPAK classification. Clinical outcome evaluations were measured using the Knee Society Score (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Short Form Survey 12 and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). Differences in clinical outcomes were considered statistically significant with a p value <0 .05. RESULTS: Patients with varus aHKA achieved significantly inferior outcomes at final follow-up compared to other aHKA categories in KSS pt. 1 (79.7 ± 17.2 vs. 85.6 ± 14.7; p = 0.028), OKS (39.2 ± 9.2 vs. 42.2 ± 7.2; p = 0.019) and FJS (75.4 ± 31.0 vs. 87.4 ± 22.9; p =0 .003). The most common aHKA category was the varus category (39%). The most common CPAK phenotypes were apex distal Types I (23.9%), II (22.8%) and III (13.3%). CONCLUSION: MA TKA does not yield uniform outcomes across all CPAK phenotypes. Varus aHKA category shows significantly inferior results at final follow-up. The most prevalent CPAK categories are varus aHKA and apex distal JLO, with phenotypes I, II and III being the most common. However, their gender distribution varies significantly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Visible fluid motion on manipulation as the new threshold for intraoperatively determined knee arthroplasty component loosening: A Delphi study.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of a clear, uniform definition for intraoperatively assessed component loosening of a knee arthroplasty component, complicating the interpretation and interchangeability of results of diagnostic studies using an intraoperative observation as the reference test. The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus among specialised knee revision surgeons regarding the definition of intraoperatively determined loosening of total or unicondylar knee arthroplasty components. METHODS: Utilising the Delphi consensus method, an international panel of highly specialised knee revision surgeons was invited to participate in a three-round process. The initiation of the first round involved the exploration of possible criteria for intraoperatively determined loosening with open questions. The second round focused on rating these criteria importance on a five-point Likert scale. For the third round, criteria that reached consensus were summarised in consecutive definitions for intraoperatively determined loosening and proposed to the panel. Consensus was established when over 70% of participants agreed with a definition for intraoperatively determined loosening. RESULTS: The 34 responding panel members described in total 60 different criteria in the first round of which 34 criteria received consensus in the second round. Summarising these criteria resulted in four different definitions as minimal requirements for intraoperatively determined loosening. Eighty-eight percent of the panel members agreed on defining a component as loose if there is visible fluid motion at the interface observed during specific movements or when gently applying direct force. CONCLUSION: This study successfully established a consensus using a Delphi method among knee revision surgeons on the definition of intraoperatively determined component loosening. By agreeing on the visibility of fluid motion as new definition, this study provides a standardised reference for future diagnostic research. This definition will enhance the interpretability and interchangeability of future diagnostic studies evaluating knee arthroplasty component loosening. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Tibia-first, gap-balanced patient-specific alignment restores bony phenotypes and joint line obliquity in a great majority of varus and straight knees and normalises valgus and severe varus deformities.

PURPOSE: The present study focuses on testing the capability of a restricted tibia-first, gap-balanced patient-specific alignment technique (PSA) to restore bony morphology and phenotypes. METHODS: Three-hundred and sixty-seven patients were treated with navigated total knee arthroplasty and tibia-first gap-balanced PSA technique. Boundaries for medial proximal tibial angle were 86°-92°, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle 86°-92°, and hip-knee-ankle angle 175°-183°. Knees were classified by coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK), with subsequent analyses comparing pre- and postoperative distributions. Phenotype classification within CPAK groups assessed pre- and postoperative distributions. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the largest CPAK group was type II (30.8%), followed by type I (20.5%) and type V (17.8%). Postoperatively, type II remained the largest group (39%), followed by type V (30%). All groups with varus/valgus deformities (I, III, IV and VI) became smaller. While in straight legs (II, IV), the CPAK was restored in more than 70%-75%, in varus groups (I, IV) in 40%-50% and in valgus (III and VI) in 5%-18%. The joint line obliquity remained the same in the majority of knees (straight >75%; varus 63%-80%; valgus VI 95%), with the exception of CPAK III (40%). The phenotype analysis showed for straight legs a phenotype restoration of 85%, for varus 94% and for valgus 37%. Joint line convergence angle was reduced significantly in all groups from 1.8°-4.3° preoperatively to 0.6°-1.2° postoperatively. CONCLUSION: PSA restores bony phenotypes and joint line obliquity in the majority of straight and varus knees, while most of the valgus and extreme varus knees are normalised. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

No differences in terms of complications, readmissions, reoperations, and patient-reported outcomes in simultaneous bilateral versus staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: The safety and the clinical success of simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare complications and patient-reported outcomes following simultaneous BTKA (simBTKA) versus staged BKTA (staBTKA) in patients affected by bilateral symptomatic end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Data from patients who underwent simBTKA or staBTKA at a single institution from January 2017 to December 2020, with a minimum 1-year follow up period were retrospectively collected. Differences in terms of complications and clinical success were compared among the simBTKA and staBTKA patient groups. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included in this study. The results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mortality, revision rate, readmission rate, local and systemic complications and patient-reported outcomes. SimBTKA group had a shorter operating room time (96 (73-119) vs. 195 (159-227); P < 0.0001), and length of hospital stay (4 (3-5) vs. 7 (6-9); P < 0.0001) compared with the staBTKA group. CONCLUSIONS: SimBTKA performed in a selected patient population at a high-volume center can be considered comparable to staBTKA in terms of safety, postoperative complications, 30-day readmissions and patient satisfaction. Consequently, reduced operating room time and hospital stay renders simBTKA a cost-effective and advantageous option, not only for patients, but also for healthcare institutes. Furthermore, the current study also highlights the importance of correct patient selection based on clinical preoperative characteristics.

Gender-based differences exist in the functional knee phenotypes classification of the osteoarthritic knee.

PURPOSE: To identify gender differences in (1) the coronal alignment of functional knee phenotypes and (2) the JLCA (joint line convergence angle) in relation to the phenotype classification. METHODS: This study is a retrospective data analysis, including 12,099 osteoarthritic knee computed tomography (5025 male, 7074 female) analysed by Medacta software for hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), femoral mechanical angle (FMA), tibial mechanical angle (TMA) and JLCA. The data were grouped into genders and combined according to the Functional Knee Phenotypes Classification. RESULTS: Out of 127 phenotypes for males and 131 for females, 17 common phenotypes were reported. The commonest four were similar for both genders with VARHKA177° NEUFMA93° NEUTMA87° (9.8% males, 9.50% females), followed by VARHKA174° NEUFMA93°VARTMA84° (7.1%) and VARHKA174°VARFMA90° NEUTMA87° (7.0%) for males and VARHKA174° NEUFMA93° NEUTMA87° (6.1%), VARHKA174° NEUFMA93°VARTMA84° (5.1%) for females. The commonest FMA and TMA (91.5° to 94.5° and 85.5° to 88.5°, respectively) were the same for both genders, however, the rest of the male population observed greater femoral varus than the female population (p < 0.001). JLCA values ranged from -28.4° to 8.2° in the overall study population. Males and females had a mean JLCA of -2.96° (±2.6° SD) and -2.66° (±2.8°7 SD), respectively, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences exist within the osteoarthritic knee phenotype. The male varus phenotype is influenced by FMA, while TMA values are similar across genders. JLCA variations show similarities to both TMA and FMA, suggesting JLCA is influenced by bone morphology more than by gender. These differences inform surgical decision-making for the personalised approach to the primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Definition of normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal knee alignment for total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: One of the most pertinent questions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is: what could be considered normal coronal alignment? This study aims to define normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal alignment using large data from a computed tomography (CT)-scan database and previously published phenotypes. METHODS: Coronal alignment parameters from 11,191 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients were measured based on three dimensional reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software. Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of the overall hip knee ankle angle (HKA), femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA). Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ±1.5° from this mean. Coronal alignment is classified as normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant based on distribution frequency. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients in this study and non-OA patients from a previously published study). RESULTS: The arithmetic HKA (aHKA), combined normalised data of FMA and TMA, showed that 36.0% of knees were neutral within ±1 SD from the mean in both angles, 44.3% had either a TMA or a FMA within ±1-2 SD (normally aligned), 15.3% of the patients were deviant within ±2-3 SD and only 4.4% of them had an aberrant alignment (±3-4 SD in 3.4% and >4 SD in 1.0% of the patients respectively). However, combining the normalised data of HKA, FMA and TMA, 15.4% of patients were neutral in all three angles, 39.7% were at least normal, 27.7% had at least one deviant angle and 17.2% had at least one aberrant angle. For HKA, the males exhibited 1° varus and females were neutral. For FMA, the females exhibited 0.7° more valgus in mean than males and grew 1.8° per category (males grew 2.1° per category). For TMA, the males exhibited 1.3° more varus than females and both grew 2.3° and 2.4° (females) per category. Normal coronal alignment was 179.2° ± 2.8-5.6° (males) and 180.5 > ± 2.8-5.6° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 2.1-4.2° (males) and 93.8 > ± 1.8-3.6° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 2.3-4.6° (males) and 88 > ± 2.4-4.8° (females) for TMA. This means HKA 6.4 varus or 4.8° valgus (males) or 5.1° varus to 6.1° valgus was considered normal. For FMA HKA 1.1 varus or 7.3° valgus (males) or 0.2° valgus to 7.4° valgus was considered normal. For TMA HKA 7.9 varus or 1.3° valgus (males) or 6.8° varus to 2.8° valgus was considered normal. Aberrant coronal alignment started from 179.2° ± 8.4° (males) and 180.5 > ± 8.4° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 6.3° (males) 93.8 > ± 5.4° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 6.9° (males) and 88 > ± 7.2° (females) for TMA. This means HKA > 9.2° varus or 7.6° valgus (males) or 7.9° varus to 8.9° valgus was considered aberrant. CONCLUSION: Definitions of neutrality, normality, deviance as well as aberrance for coronal alignment in TKA were proposed in this study according to their distribution frequencies. This can be seen as an important first step towards a safe transition from the conventional one-size-fits-all to a more personalised coronal alignment target. There should be further definitions combining bony alignment, joint surfaces' morphology, soft tissue laxities and joint kinematics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Gluteal Complex is important in External Snapping Hip: intraoperative identification of syndrome origin and endoscopic stepwise release-a case series.

PURPOSE: External snapping hip syndrome (ESHS) was historically attributed to isolated iliotibial band (ITB) contracture. However, the gluteus maximus complex (GMC) may also be involved. This study aimed to intraoperatively identify the ESHS origin and assess the outcomes of endoscopic treatment based on the identified aetiological type. METHODS: From 2008-2014, 30 consecutive patients (34 hips) with symptomatic ESHS cases refractory to conservative treatment underwent endoscopic stepwise "fan-like" release, gradually addressing all known reasons of ESHS: from the isolated ITB, through the fascial part of the GMC until a partial release of gluteus maximus femoral attachment occurred. Snapping was assessed intra-operatively after each surgical step and prospectively recorded. Functional outcomes were assessed via the MAHORN Hip Outcome Tool (MHOT-14). RESULTS: Twenty seven patients (31 hips) were available to follow-up at 24-56 months. In all cases, complete snapping resolution was achieved intra-operatively: in seven cases (22.6%) after isolated ITB release, in 22 cases (70.9%), after release of ITB + fascial part of the GMC, and in two cases (6.5%) after ITB + fascial GMC release + partial release of GM femoral insertion. At follow-up, there were no snapping recurrences and MHOT-14 score significantly increased from a pre-operative average of 46 to 93(p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative identification and gradual addressing of all known causes of ESHS allows for maximum preservation of surrounding tissue during surgery while precisely targeting the directly involved structures. Endoscopic stepwise "fan-like" release of the ITB and GMC is an effective, tailor-made treatment option for ESHS regardless of the snapping origin in the patients with possibility to manually reproduce the snapping.

Ten Flaws of Systematic Mechanical Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Mechanical alignment (MA) and its tenets have been considered essential for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) success since they were introduced in 1973. However, over time, there have been colossal advances in our knowledge and understanding of the anatomy and kinematics of the knee, as well as in surgical precision and implants. However, the MA systematic principles of prosthetic arthroplasty and implant position related to the lower-extremity mechanical axis, have only recently been called into question. The high rates of dissatisfaction and residual pain reported after MA TKA prompted this questioning, and that leaves plenty of room for improvement. Despite the general consensus that there is great variability between patients' anatomy, it is still the norm to carry out a systematic operation that does not consider individual variations. Evolving to a more personalized arthroplasty surgery was proposed as a rational and reasonable option to improve patient outcomes. Transitioning to a personalized TKA approach requires questioning and even disregarding certain MA TKA principles. Based on current knowledge, we can state that certain principles are erroneous or unfounded. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss and challenge 10 previously accepted, yet we believe, flawed, principles of MA, and to present an alternative concept, which is rooted in personalized TKA techniques.

Why personalized surgery is the future of hip and knee arthroplasty: a statement from the Personalized Arthroplasty Society.

Although hip and knee joint replacements provide excellent clinical results, many patients still do not report the sensation and function of a natural joint. The perception that the joint is artificial may result from the anatomical modifications imposed by the surgical technique and the implant design. Moreover, the joint replacement material may not function similarly to human tissues. To restore native joint kinematics, function, and perception, three key elements play a role: (i) joint morphology (articular surface geometry, bony anatomy, etc.), (ii) lower limb anatomy (alignment, joint orientation), and (iii) soft tissue laxity/tension. To provide a 'forgotten joint' to most patients, it is becoming clear that personalizing joint replacement is the key solution. Performing a personalized joint replacement starts with patient selection and preoperative optimization, followed by using a surgical technique and implant design aimed at restoring the patient's native anatomy, creating optimal implant-to-bone stress transfer, restoring the joint's native articular range of motion without imposed limitations, macro- and micro-stability of the soft tissues, and a bearing whose wear resistance provides lifetime survivorship with unrestricted activities. In addition, the whole perioperative experience should follow enhanced recovery after surgery principles, favoring a rapid and complication-free recovery. As a new concept, some confusion may arise when applying these personalized surgery principles. Therefore, the Personalized Arthroplasty Society was created to help structure and accelerate the adoption of this paradigm change. This statement from the Society on personalized arthroplasty will serve as a reference that will evolve with time.

Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer.

Peer review is an essential process to ensure that scientific articles meet high standards of methodology, ethics and quality. The peer-review process is a part of the academic mission for physicians in the university setting. The work of reviewers is of great value for authors, as it gives constructive criticism and improves manuscript quality before publication. Often, however, reviews are of suboptimal quality. Usually, reviewers do not receive formal training either on how to perform a review or on the peer-review process. In addition, it is generally believed that experienced authors are great reviewers, but this may not always be true. The overarching goal of a review is to make the manuscript better; to help the authors. The purpose of this article is to offer relevant suggestions and provide a checklist on how to perform a useful review.

Use of the forgotten joint score (FJS)-12 to evaluate knee awareness after quadriceps tendon reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Quadriceps tendon rupture (QTR) is a severe injury of the knee extensor apparatus. The study aims to validate the use of forgotten joint score (FJS-12) for functional outcome assessing after surgical treatment of QTR. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients who underwent surgery for QTR with transosseous suture reconstruction in a single orthopaedic surgery and traumatology center between 2015 and 2020 were eligible for enrolment in this retrospective case series. The demographic data and other pre-operative details such as age, gender, comorbidities and medication use also were extracted from the medical records. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were gathered in the form of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Score (WOMAC), Tegner Activity Score (TAS), Lysholm Score and FJS-12 at a mean follow-up time of 49.84 months ± 20.64 months. The FJS-12 was validated by correlation with WOMAC, TAS and Lysholm Score. RESULTS: The mean age of all patients were 69.2 ± 13.6 years with 51 (89.5%) males and 6 (10.5%) females. The mean time from injury to surgery was 3.39 ± 5.46 days. All patients reported satisfactory functional outcomes after surgery on FJS-12, WOMAC and Lysholm scores, except the TAS, which decreased slightly from pre-operative level. There was a high negative correlation between WOMAC and FJS-12, but moderate positive correlations between FJS-12 and TAS and Lysholm scores. The Cronbach's alpha value was 0.96 for 12 items in FJS-12. CONCLUSION: This study has found that FJS-12 is a reliable and easy to assess tool for functional outcomes after QTR reconstruction. It has shown moderate to strong correlation with other commonly used outcome measures (WOMAC, TAS and Lysholm).

Patellofemoral arthroplasty with onlay prosthesis leads to higher rates of osteoarthritis progression than inlay design implants: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report the clinical and functional outcomes, complication rates, implant survivorship and the progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA), after new inlay or onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), for isolated patellofemoral OA. Comparison of different implant types and models, where it was possible, also represented one of the objectives. METHODS: A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases, to identify possible relevant studies, published from the inception of these databases until 11.11.2022. Randomized control trials (RCTs), case series, case control studies and cohort studies, written in English or German, and published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010, were included. Not original studies, case reports, simulation studies, systematic reviews, or studies that included patients who underwent TKA or unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) of the medial or lateral compartment of the knee, were excluded. Additionally, only articles that assessed functional and/or clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), radiographic progression of OA, complication rates, implant survival rates, pain, as well as conversion to TKA rates in patients treated with PFA, using inlay or onlay trochlea designs, were included. For quality assessment, the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for non-comparative and comparative clinical intervention studies was used. RESULTS: The literature search identified 404 articles. 29 of them met all the inclusion criteria following the selection process. Median MINORS for non-comparative studies value was 12.5 (range 11-14), and for comparative studies 20.1 (range 17-24). In terms of clinical and functional outcomes, no difference between onlay and inlay PFA has been described. Both designs yielded satisfactory results at short, medium and long-term follow-ups. Both designs improved pain postoperatively and no difference between them in terms of postoperative VAS has been noted, although the onlay groups presented a higher preoperative VAS. When comparing the inlay to onlay trochlea designs, the inlay group displayed a lower progression of OA rate. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in functional or clinical outcomes after PFA between the new inlay and the onlay designs, with both presenting an improvement in most of the scores that were used. A higher rate of OA progression was observed in the onlay design group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.