Better restoration of joint line obliquity in tibia first restricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment TKA.

INTRODUCTION: In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), suboptimal restoration of joint line obliquity (JLO) and joint line height (JLH) may lead to diminished implant longevity, increased risk of complications, and reduced patient reported outcomes. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) leads to improved restoration of JLO and JLH compared to mechanical alignment (MA) in TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study assessed patients who underwent single implant design TKA for primary osteoarthritis, either MA with manual instrumentation or rKA assisted with imageless navigation robotic arm TKA. Pre- and post-operative long standing AP X-ray imaging were used to measure JLO formed between the proximal tibial joint line and the floor. JLH was measured as the distance from the femoral articular surface to the adductor tubercle. RESULTS: Overall, 200 patients (100 patients in each group) were included. Demographics between the two groups including age, sex, ASA, laterality, and BMI did not significantly differ. Distribution of KL osteoarthritis classification was similar between the groups. For the MA group, pre- to post-operative JLO significantly changed (2.94° vs. 2.31°, p = 0.004). No significant changes were found between pre- and post-operative JLH (40.6 mm vs. 40.6 mm, p = 0.89). For the rKA group, no significant changes were found between pre- and post-operative JLO (2.43° vs. 2.30°, p = 0.57). Additionally, no significant changes were found between pre- and post-operative JLH (41.2 mm vs. 42.4 mm, p = 0.17). Pre- to post-operative JLO alteration was five times higher in the MA group compared to the rKA group, although this comparison between groups did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: rKA-TKA results in high restoration accuracy of JLO and JLH, and demonstrates less pre- and post-operative JLO alteration compared to MA-TKA. With risen interest in joint line restoration accuracy with kinematic alignment, these findings suggest potential advantages compared to MA. Future investigation is needed to correlate between joint line restoration accuracy achieved by rKA and enhanced implant longevity, reduced risk of post-operative complications, and heightened patient satisfaction.

In vivo kinematic comparison of bi-cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty between mechanical alignment and functional alignment methods.

Background/objective: This study aimed to clarify the kinematics of bi-cruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by comparing the mechanical alignment (MA) and functional alignment (FA) methods and to evaluate differences between the two alignment methods. Methods: The in vivo kinematics of 20 MA TKA and 20 FA TKA knees were investigated under fluoroscopy during squatting using a two-to three-dimensional registration technique. Accordingly, knee flexion angle, axial rotational angle, varus-valgus angle, anteroposterior translation of the medial and lateral low contact points of the femoral component relative to the tibial component and kinematic pathway were evaluated. Results: No difference in the knee flexion angle was observed between the MA and FA TKA groups. Femoral external rotation was observed in both groups and no significant difference was observed. Significant varus alignment from extension to early flexion range was observed in the FA TKA group. The posterior translation of the medial side was smaller in the FA TKA group than in the MA TKA group. Conversely, no significant difference in the anteroposterior translation of the lateral side was observed. In the kinematic pathway, a medial pivot motion from 0° to 20° of flexion and a lateral pivot motion beyond 20° of flexion were observed in both groups. Conclusion: During squatting in BCR TKA, the FA TKA group significantly showed varus alignment and smaller posterior translation of the medial side than the MA TKA group from extension to early flexion range.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcomes and innovations in Total Knee Arthroplasty: KINEMATIC, PERSONALIZED KNEE vs. CONVENTIONAL.

Background: Kinematic alignment is an emerging approach for total knee arthroplasty, with the aim to restore patient's individual pre-arthritic joint kinematics. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the kinematic alignment with the conventional mechanical alignment for total knee arthroplasty. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus on June 2, 2024. We screened the retrieved studies for eligibility. Then extracted the data from the included studies, and then pooled the data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using Review Manager Software (ver. 3.5). Results: There was no significant difference between KA and MA in the different reported scores: combined KSS score at 6 months (P = 0.23) and 1 years (P = 0.60), KSS Patient satisfaction (P = 0.33), KSS function score (P = 0.07), Oxford score at 6 months (P = 0.45) and 2 years (P = 0.41), KOOS score (P = 0.26). Moreover, there was statistically significant difference in range of motion for flexion and extension at 1 and 2 years, incision length, the length of hospital stay, or the duration of surgery. Conclusion: Although kinematic alignment showed slightly better clinical outcomes than mechanical alignment, the difference between the two techniques is not statistically significant.

Predictive factors for deep medial collateral ligament release in adjusted mechanical alignment total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) demands precision in achieving optimal alignment and soft tissue balance, especially in cases of medial compartment osteoarthritis where the need for medial soft tissue release is critical yet challenging to ascertain. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically investigate the relationship between preoperative data, initial knee conditions and the necessity for deep collateral ligament (MCL) release in adjusted mechanical alignment total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study involving 61 TKA patients who underwent adjusted mechanical alignment robotic-assisted procedures. Soft tissue release was carried out when clinically indicated. We collected and statistically analyzed patient demographics, initial knee conditions, and surgical details. RESULTS: Among the patients, 52% required deep MCL release. Notably, patients without soft tissue release exhibited lower initial hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angles, reduced varus-valgus stress test angles, and a greater range of flexion. We identified a predictive threshold HKA angle of 6.250 degrees, demonstrating high sensitivity and specificity for determining the need for deep MCL release. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the significance of the initial HKA angle and varus-valgus stress tests in predicting deep MCL release during TKA. The established HKA angle threshold simplifies surgical decision-making, reducing the likelihood of unnecessary soft tissue release.

Excellent results of restricted kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

PURPOSE: While restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with cemented implants has been shown to provide a similar survivorship rate to mechanical alignment (MA) in the short term, no studies have reported on the long-term survivorship and function. METHODS: One hundred four consecutive cemented cruciate retaining TKAs implanted using computer navigation and following the rKA principles proposed by Vendittoli were reviewed at a minimum of 10 years after surgery. Implant revisions, reoperations and clinical outcomes were assessed using knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), forgotten joint score (FJS), patients' satisfaction and joint perception questionnaires. Radiographs were analyzed to identify signs of osteolysis and implant loosening. RESULTS: Implant survivorship was 99.0% at a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (range: 10.3-12.9) with one early revision for instability. Patients perceived their TKA as natural or artificial without limitation in 50.0% of cases, and 95.3% were satisfied or very satisfied with their TKA. The mean FJS was 67.6 (range: 0-100). The mean KOOS were as follows: pain 84.7 (range: 38-100), symptoms 85.5 (range: 46-100), function in daily activities 82.6 (range: 40-100), function in sport and recreation 35.2 (range: 0-100) and quality of life 79.1 (range: 0-100). No radiological evidence of implant aseptic loosening or osteolysis was identified. CONCLUSION: Cemented TKA implanted with the rKA alignment protocol demonstrated excellent long-term implant survivorship and is a safe alternative to MA to improve patient function and satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, continuous case series with no comparison group.

Comparison of Six-Week, Three-Month, and One-Year Postoperative Clinical Results of Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment in Primary Medial Pivot Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common surgical solution for severe osteoarthritis. Kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) are two popular techniques. There is ongoing debate over the optimal method, influenced by varying long-term results and a scarcity of data on short-term postoperative outcomes. Early evaluation of these techniques is vital for improving rehabilitation outcomes and ensuring patient satisfaction.  Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed outcomes from 71 KA-TKRs and 85 MA-TKRs performed between 2019 and 2021. Knee flexion, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, EuroQol-5d (EQ-5d) quality of life measures, and dependence on walking aids were evaluated. Evaluations were conducted at baseline, six-weeks, three-months, and 12-months postoperatively using two-sample t-tests for continuous data and Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical data. RESULTS: At six-weeks and three-months postoperatively, the KA group exhibited significantly better outcomes in knee flexion (98.6° vs. 90.2° at six-weeks; 114.7° vs. 94.2° at three-months), pain management, and reduced walking aids compared to the MA group. By 12-months, these differences were no longer significant, with both groups showing comparable results in knee flexion, pain scores, and patient-reported outcomes.  Conclusion: KA offers substantial short-term advantages over MA for pain relief, increased knee flexion, and independence from walking aids. However, these benefits do not persist at one-year post-surgery, indicating a convergence of outcomes between the two techniques. Larger studies with extended follow-ups are required to determine the long-term implications of these alignment strategies.

Alignment Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty：Where do We Stand Today?

Achieving optimal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a critical factor in ensuring optimal outcomes and long-term implant survival. Traditionally, mechanical alignment has been favored to achieve neutral post-operative joint alignment. However, contemporary approaches, such as kinematic alignments and hybrid techniques including adjusted mechanical, restricted kinematic, inverse kinematic, and functional alignments, are gaining attention for their ability to restore native joint kinematics and anatomical alignment, potentially leading to enhanced functional outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. The ongoing debate on optimal alignment strategies considers the following factors: long-term implant durability, functional improvement, and resolution of individual anatomical variations. Furthermore, advancements of computer-navigated and robotic-assisted surgery has augmented the precision in implant positioning and objective measurements of soft tissue balance. Despite ongoing debates on balancing implant longevity and functional outcomes, there is an increasing advocacy for personalized alignment strategies that are tailored to individual anatomical variations. This review evaluates the spectrum of various alignment techniques in TKA, including mechanical alignment, patient-specific kinematic approaches, and emerging hybrid methods. Each technique is scrutinized based on its fundamental principles, procedural techniques, inherent advantages, and potential limitations, while identifying significant clinical gaps that underscore the need for further investigation.

The influence of the surgeon's handedness and standing position at the operating table on the radiological outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare radiological outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in mechanical alignment implant positioning in the coronal and sagittal planes depending on surgeons' handedness and their position at the operating table. METHODS: A total number of 200 consecutive patients with idiopathic osteoarthritis and varus knees who underwent TKA were retrospectively included in this research. Patients were operated on by 4 surgeons (50 for each surgeon) selected according to their handedness and position at the operative table. Surgeon I (right-handed, standing at the operating table always on the right side); Surgeon II(left-handed, standing at the operating table always on the left side); Surgeon III (right-handed, standing at the operating table on the side of the operated limb); Surgeon IV (left-handed, standing at the operating table on the side of the operated limb). RESULTS: Comparing postoperative radiological results statistically significant differences were calculated in the case of deviation from HKA angle (left TKA -1.5°; Interquartile Range [IQR] = -2.6-[-1] vs right TKA -3°; IQR = -4.5-[-2]; p = 0.01) for surgeon II and MPTA for surgeon IV (left TKA 0°; IQR = -1-0.5 vs right TKA 1°; IQR = 0-2; p < 0.01). Higher deviation from the mechanical alignment angles and implant positioning was revealed for a less convenient operation site for the surgeon. CONCLUSION: We recommend that all surgeons performing TKAs from the less comfortable side should take great care in establishing the MPTA and HKA angles to avoid surgical errors in implant positioning and limb alignment.

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.

Equivalent Clinical Outcomes Between Anatomical Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment of Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Posterior-Stabilized Prosthesis During an Average Follow-Up of Five Years: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the differences in clinical outcomes between anatomical alignment and mechanical alignment in each knee, respectively, in patients who underwent bilateral total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty using a posterior-stabilized prosthesis was performed between June 2016 and May 2018, with one knee undergoing anatomical alignment and the contralateral knee undergoing mechanical alignment, which was randomized. There were 80 knees in 40 patients (mean age 75 years, range 60 to 87, with 4 men and 36 women) followed up for at least 2 years (mean follow-up 4.9 years, range 2 to 7 years). On the anatomical side, the distal femoral cut was set 2° more valgus to the mechanical axis, and the tibial cut was set to 2 or 3° varus using a specific guide. Implant position and lower extremity alignment were measured using postoperative radiographs and computed tomography images. The range of motion before and after surgery, Knee Society score, patient satisfaction, postoperative 2011 Knee Society questionnaire, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores were evaluated. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed in joint line orientation (0.6 versus 2.9°, P < .001), but not in the postoperative hip-knee-ankle angle between 2 groups. There was one knee in the mechanical alignment group that required revision surgery at 5 years due to implant loosening. Before surgery, the anatomical alignment group had a significantly lower knee extension angle (-7.2 versus -6.0°, P = .035) and Knee Society Score (46.1 versus 49.1, P = .046). No significant difference was observed between the groups except for the 2011 Knee Society Questionnaire satisfaction scores (26.7 versus 25.7, P = .035). More participants preferred the anatomical alignment side postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical and mechanical alignments had similar clinical outcomes in patients undergoing bilateral total knee arthroplasty at a mean of 4.9 years follow-up. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅰ (Randomized control study).

No difference in postoperative patient satisfaction rates between mechanical and kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare patient satisfaction patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) levels after mechanically aligned (MA) and kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus to identify potentially relevant articles for this review, published from the beginning of March 2013 until the end of October 2023. Only articles reporting satisfaction after KA TKA, MA TKA or both were included, which use valid and reliable tools for the evaluation and reporting of satisfaction after TKA. Title, authors, year of publication, study design, level of evidence, follow-up period, patients' demographic data, sample size, type of satisfaction score, postoperative satisfaction score, postoperative alignment, statistical significance, as well as other variables, were extracted for analysis. An Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) design-specific scale was used for assessing randomized control trials (RCTs). The nonrandomized control trials were evaluated by using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was also used to assess cohort studies, while case series were evaluated using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies. Results: The initial search identified 316 studies, of which 178 were considered for screening. Eleven studies completely fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including one RCT, five nonrandomized control trials/quasi-experiments, three case series, and two cohort studies. The total number of patients recruited for MA TKA was 1740. Conversely, 497 patients were enrolled for KA TKA. Five studies used the visual analogue scale (VAS) for assessing postoperative patient satisfaction, four used the Knee Society Score (KSS) 2011 version and two Likert-based types of scores. Overall, the highest mean satisfaction score of KSS 2011 was 31.5 ± 6.6 in the MA group, and 29.8 ± 80 in the KA group in four studies. All of them showed high postoperative patient satisfaction rates for both MA and KA TKA, but with no statistically significant difference between them (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty, as well as kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty led to high rates of postoperative patient satisfaction, with no statistically significant differences between them. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review.

Methods of alignment in total knee arthroplasty, systematic review.

Introduction: Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a very frequent surgery, one in five patients is not completely satisfied. Mechanical alignment (MA) is the most popular technique for implanting TKA. However, to improve clinical outcomes, new techniques that aim to rebuild the native alignment of the knee have been developed. Objective: The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the available clinical trials and observational studies comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of different methods of alignment (kinematic, anatomic, functional) to MA. Methods: A systematic review is performed comparing results of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaires (WOMAC, OKS, KSS, KOOS, FJS), radiological angles (HKA, mLDFA, MPTA, JLOA, femoral rotation and tibial slope) and range of motion (ROM). Results: Kinematic and functional alignment show a slight tendency to obtain better PROMs compared to mechanical alignment. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Nevertheless, these results are not consistent in every study. Anatomic alignment showed no significant differences compared to mechanical alignment. Conclusion: Kinematic alignment is an equal or slightly better alternative than mechanical alignment for patients included in this study. However, the difference between methods does not seem to be enough to explain the high percentage of dissatisfied patients. Studies implementing lax inclusion and exclusion criteria would be needed to resemble conditions of patients assisted in daily surgical practice. It would be interesting to study patient's knee phenotypes, to notice if any method of alignment is significantly better for any constitutional deviation.

Kinematic Alignment Achieves a More Balanced Total Knee Arthroplasty Than Mechanical Alignment among CPAK Type I Patients: A Simulation Study.

Background: There is no consensus on whether mechanical alignment (MA) or kinematic alignment (KA) should be chosen for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) Type I with a varus arithmetic HKA (aHKA) and apex distal joint line obliquity (JLO). The aim of this study was to investigate whether MA or KA is preferable for soft tissue balancing in TKA for this phenotype. Method: This prospective cohort study included 64 knees with CPAK Type I osteoarthritis that had undergone cruciate-retaining TKA. Using optical tracking software, we simulated implant placement in the Mako system before making the actual bone cut and compared the results between MA and KA. Extension balance (the difference between medial and lateral gaps in extension) and medial balance (the difference in medial gaps in flexion and extension) were examined. These gap differences within 2 mm were defined as good balance. Achievement of overall balance was defined as an attainment of good extension and medial balance. The incidence of balance in each patient was compared with an independent sample ratio test. Results: Compared with the MA group, the KA group achieved better soft tissue balance in extension balance (p < 0.001). A total of 75% of the patients in the KA group achieved overall balance, which was greater than the 38% achieved in the MA group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In robot-assisted TKA for CPAK Type I osteoarthritis, KA achieved knee balance during extension without soft tissue release in a greater percentage of patients than MA.

Restoring the Preoperative Phenotype According to the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Classification After Total Knee Arthroplasty Leads to Better Functional Results.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical alignment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is still widely used in the surgical community, but the alignment finally obtained by conventional techniques remains uncertain. The recent Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification distinguishes 9 knee phenotypes according to constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). The aim of this study was to assess the phenotypes of osteoarthritic patients before and after TKA using mechanical alignment and to analyze the influence of CPAK restoration on functional outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included 178 TKAs with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were operated on using a conventional technique with the goal of neutral mechanical alignment. The CPAK grade (1 to 9), considering the arithmetic Hip-Knee-Ankle angle (aHKA) and the JLO, was determined before and after TKA. Functional results were assessed using the following patient-reported outcome measures: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Simple Knee Value, and the Forgotten Joint Score. RESULTS: A true neutral mechanical alignment was obtained in only 37.1%. Isolated restoration of JLO was found in 31.4%, and isolated restoration of the aHKA in 44.9%. Exact restoration of the CPAK phenotype was found in 14.6%. Restoration of the CPAK grade was associated with an improvement in the "daily living": 79.2 ± 5.3 versus 62.5 ± 2.3 (R2 = 0.05, P < .05) and "Quality of life" Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales: 73.8 ± 5.0 versus 62.9 ± 2.2 (R2 = 0.02, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that few neutral mechanical alignments are finally obtained after TKA by conventional technique. A major number of patients present a postoperative modification of their constitutional phenotype. Functional results at 2 years of follow-up appear to be improved by the restoration of the CPAK phenotype, JLO, and aHKA. LEVEL OF CLINICAL ART EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Kinematical alignment better restores native patellar tracking pattern than mechanical alignment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether kinematic alignment (KA) outperforms mechanical alignment (MA) in restoring patellar tracking to native patterns by using a clustering algorithm. METHODS: Twenty cadavers (40 knees) were evaluated. For each cadaver, one knee was randomly assigned to KA and the other to MA. KA total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures were performed using a caliper-verified technique, while MA TKA procedures utilized a measured resection technique. Subsequently, all specimens were mounted on a customized knee-testing system, and patellar tracking was measured using a motion analysis system. All patellar tracking data were clustered using the density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise algorithm. Differences in patellar tracking patterns and the restoration of native patellar tracking were compared between the two alignment strategies. RESULTS: Patellar tracking patterns following KA were considerably different from MA. Pre- and post-TKA patellar tracking patterns following MA were grouped into separate clusters, whereas a substantial proportion of patellar tracking patterns following KA were grouped into the pre-TKA dominant cluster. Compared to MA, a greater proportion of patellar tracking patterns following KA showed similar patterns to native knees (p < 0.05) and more patellar tracking patterns following KA paired with preoperative patterns (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: KA restored native patellar tracking patterns more closely compared to MA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Conventionally instrumented inverse kinematic alignment for total knee arthroplasty: How is it done?

Purpose: For primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there is an increasing trend towards patient-specific alignment strategies such as kinematic alignment (KA) and inverse kinematic alignment (iKA), which by restoring native joint mechanics may yield higher patient satisfaction rates. Second, the most recent Australian joint registry report describes favourable revision rates for conventionally instrumented TKA compared to technology-assisted techniques such as those using navigation, robotics or custom-cutting blocks. The aim of this technique article is to describe in detail a surgical technique for TKA that: (1) utilises the principles of iKA and (2) uses conventionally instrumented guided resections thereby avoiding the use of navigation, robotics or custom blocks. Methods: A TKA technique is described, whereby inverse kinematic principles are utilised and patient-specific alignment is achieved. Additionally, the patellofemoral compartment of the knee is restored to the native patellofemoral joint line. The sequenced technical note provided may be utilised for cemented or cementless components; cruciate retaining or sacrificing designs and for fixed or rotating platforms. Results: An uncomplicated, robust and reproducible technique for TKA is described. Discussion: Knee arthroplasty surgeons may wish to harness the emerging benefits of both a conventionally instrumented technique and a patient-specific alignment strategy. Level of Evidence: Level V.

Coronal Plane Alignment Classification of Arthritic Knees in a South Indian Population and Functional Outcome Comparison Post-mechanical Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Study Background: Mechanical alignment has always been considered as the gold standard in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but various other coronal alignment strategies have been proposed to enhance native knee kinematics and thus elevate patient satisfaction levels. Coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification introduced by MacDessi is a simple yet comprehensive system to classify knees based on their coronal plane alignment. It categorizes knees into nine phenotypes based on medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA). Materials and Methods: This study investigates the distribution of classification of primary arthritic knees (CPAK) types among arthritic knees in the South Indian population and compares the functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using traditional mechanical alignment among various CPAK types. The research, spanning from September 2021 to August 2023, encompasses a comprehensive analysis of 324 patients with 352 knees in the first part and 48 patients with 72 knees in the second part of the study who underwent TKA, incorporating demographic data and radiological evaluations. Results: Results indicate a predominant distribution of CPAK type 1, followed by type 2 and type 4 among the South Indian population. In the functional outcomes analysis, regardless of CPAK type, patients exhibited significant improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores post-operatively. Conclusion: CPAK distribution among the South Indian population is comparable to other Indian study and studies with an Asian population, but varies with studies among the White population. Significant improvement of functional outcome among all CPAK types signifies the robust nature of conventional mechanical alignment strategy. Thus, our study serves as an initial exploration into the knee phenotype of the South Indian population and findings contribute to ongoing research on optimal alignment strategies in knee arthroplasty, paving the way for future, more extensive studies in this dynamic field.

Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Avoid Crossing Over From Varus to Valgus.

BACKGROUND: Ideal target limb alignment remains a debated topic in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to determine the effect of limb alignment correction on patient-reported outcomes and knee range of motion (ROM) following TKA. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, patients (N = 409) undergoing primary TKA at a single institution were studied. Using full leg-length radiographs, limb alignment was measured preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients were categorized by preoperative (Preop) alignment (varus > 0°; valgus < 0°). Preop varus patients were then divided as follows based on postoperative alignment: neutral (VAR-NEUT, 0°± 2), remaining in varus (VAR-rVAR, ≥3°), and cross-over to valgus (VAR-CO, ≤-3°). Similarly, Preop valgus patients were divided as follows for postoperative alignment: neutral (VAL-NEUT, 0°± 2), remaining in valgus (VAL-rVAL, ≤-3°), and cross-over to varus (VAL-CO, ≥3°). The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement survey scores were collected at preoperatively as well as at 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Knee ROM was collected at 2 weeks, 6 to 12 weeks, and >6 months postoperatively. An analysis of variance repeated on time followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare outcomes for the postoperative alignment subgroups. RESULTS: Preop Varus patients: Those in the VAR-CO group (overcorrected to -4.03° ± 1.95valgus) were observed to have lower Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement scores at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively compared to those in the NEUT group (P < .05). This finding was paired with reduced ROM at 6 to 12 weeks postoperatively in the VAR-CO group compared to VAR-NEUT and VAR-rVAR (P < .05). Preop Valgus patients: Those in the VAL-rVal group (left in -4.39° ± 1.39valgus) were observed to have reduced knee flexion at 6 to 12 weeks postoperatively compared to VAL-NEUT and VAL-CO. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that postoperative valgus alignment via either crossing over to valgus (VAR-CO) or remaining in valgus (VAL-rVAL) alignment may result in less preferable outcomes than correction to neutral or slightly varus alignment.

CPAK classification cannot be used to determine segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformity.

PURPOSE: While the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification serves as a useful guide in personalising total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the extent of its correlation with segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformities remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate the potential correlation between CPAK matrix groups and segmental coronal extra-articular deformities in prearthritic knees, shedding light on the relationship between these two factors that seems to be both essential to perform personalised TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiological assessment of 1240 nonarthritic knees was performed by evaluating lower limb measurements following the protocol established by Paley et al. Subsequently, all knees were classified into their respective CPAK matrix groups. In our quest to discern any correlation between the CPAK matrix groups and the presence of segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformities, nine potential coronal extra-articular deformity phenotype (CEDP) groupswere identified based on medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA). Neutral values for MPTA and mLDFA were set at 90.0° ± 3.0° and then at 87.0° ± 2.0°. Each CPAK matrix group underwent detailed coronal morphology analysis and then, segmental coronal extra-articular deformities were assessed by comparing them with the CEDP groups. RESULTS: The study revealed a mean hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) of 178.6° ± 4.4°, mLDFA of 86.9° ± 2.5°, MPTA of 85.4° ± 2.4°, arithmetic HKA of -1.4° ± 3.2° and joint line obliquity of 172.5° ± 3.7°. The varus CPAK groups (I/IV/VII) included 435 patients, the neutral groups (II/V/VIII) comprised 630 patients and the valgus groups (III/VI/IX) had 175 patients. Notably, CPAK matrix groups were not distinctly associated with specific coronal extra-articular deformity phenotype (CEDP) groups. Particularly among the most common CPAK matrix groups (I/II/III/IV/V), there was a significant variation in segmental coronal extra-articular deformity patterns. Moreover, when neutral MPTA/mLDFA values were set at 87.0° ± 2.0°, the CPAK matrix groups exhibited even greater variability in coronal extra-articular deformities. CONCLUSION: The CPAK matrix groups do not exhibit a direct correlation with a specific extra-articular deformity pattern (CEDP), thus rendering them unsuitable for determining segmental coronal extra-articular knee deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective diagnostic study.

Why Kinematic Alignment Makes Little Sense in Valgus Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Narrative Review.

There is a debate about the best alignment strategies in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Mechanical alignment (MA) targets in combination with necessary soft tissue releases are the gold standard for TKA in end-stage valgus osteoarthritis. Some authors propagate kinematic alignment (KA) with the aim of restoring the patient's native alignment and minimizing the need for soft tissue releases. Our previous studies showed that MA with standardized soft tissue release produces reproducible results, and that the preoperative phenotype does not influence the results of patients with valgus osteoarthritis. These data suggest that there is no functional advantage to preserving valgus alignment in patients with valgus osteoarthritis. Many patients with valgus osteoarthritis present with a compromised medial collateral ligament and leaving the knee in valgus could increase the risk of secondary instability. The current literature supports MA TKA with soft tissue release as the gold standard. While using more sophisticated enabling technologies like robotic surgery might allow for aiming for very slight (1-2°) valgus alignment on the femoral side, any valgus alignment outside this range should be avoided. This review paper summarizes our current knowledge on the surgical techniques of TKA in patients with valgus osteoarthritis.