Total Knee Arthroplasty Kinematics Predict Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Implications for Clinical Kinematic Examinations.

BACKGROUND: A core tenet of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is that achieving more natural kinematics will lead to superior patient outcomes. Yet this relationship has not been proven for large representative cohorts of TKA patients because accurately measuring 3-dimensional TKA kinematics is time-consuming and expensive. But advanced imaging systems and machine learning-enhanced analysis software will soon make it practical to measure knee kinematics preoperatively and postoperatively in the clinic using radiographic methods. The purpose of this study was to assess the reported relationships between TKA kinematics and outcomes and distill those findings into a proposal for a clinically practical protocol for a clinical kinematic exam. METHODS: This study reviewed the recent literature relating TKA kinematics to patient outcomes. There were 10 studies that reported statistical associations between TKA kinematics and patient outcome scores utilizing a range of functional activities. We stratified these activities by the complexity of the radiographic examination to create a proposed examination protocol, and we generated a list of requirements and characteristics for a practical TKA clinical kinematic examination. RESULTS: Given considerations for a clinically practical kinematic exam, including equipment, time and other resources, we propose 3 exam levels. With basic radiographs, we suggest studying single-leg stance in extension, lunge or squat, and kneeling. For fluoroscopic systems with X-ray pulses up to 20 ms, we propose chair-rise or stair ascent to provide additional dynamic information. For fluoroscopic systems with X-ray pulses of less than 10 ms, we propose rapid open-chain knee flexion-extension to simulate the highly dynamic swing phase of gait. CONCLUSIONS: It is our hope that this proposed examination protocol spurs discussion and debate so that there can be a consensus approach to clinical examination of knee and TKA kinematics when the rapidly advancing hardware and software capabilities are in place to do so.

Is Lower-limb Alignment Associated with Hindfoot Deformity in the Coronal Plane? A Weightbearing CT Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The goals of lower limb reconstruction are to restore alignment, to improve function, and to reduce pain. However, it remains unclear whether alignment of the lower limb and hindfoot are associated because an accurate assessment of hindfoot deformities has been limited by superposition on plain radiography. Consequently, surgeons often overlook hindfoot deformity when planning orthopaedic procedures of the lower limb. Therefore, we used weight-bearing CT to quantify hindfoot deformity related to lower limb alignment in the coronal plane. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is lower-limb alignment different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (2) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with lower-limb alignment in patients with and without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (3) Is joint line orientation different in varus than in valgus hindfoot deformities for patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? (4) Does a hindfoot deformity correlate with joint line orientation in patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis? METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, one foot and ankle surgeon obtained weightbearing CT scans as second-line imaging for 184 patients with ankle and hindfoot disorders. In 69% (127 of 184 patients) of this cohort, a combined weightbearing CT and full-leg radiograph was performed when symptomatic hindfoot deformities were present. Of those, 85% (109 of 127 patients) with a median (range) age of 53 years (23 to 75) were confirmed eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this retrospective comparative study. The Takakura classification was used to divide the cohort into patients with (n = 74) and without (n = 35) osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint. Lower-limb measurements, obtained from the full-leg radiographs, consisted of the mechanical tibiofemoral angle, mechanical tibia angle, and proximal tibial joint line angle. Weightbearing CT images were used to determine the hindfoot's alignment (mechanical hindfoot angle), the tibiotalar joint alignment (distal tibial joint line angle and talar tilt angle) and the subtalar joint alignment (subtalar vertical angle). These values were statistically assessed with an ANOVA and a pairwise comparison was subsequently performed with Tukey's adjustment. A linear regression analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). A reliability analysis was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Lower limb alignment differed among patients with hindfoot deformity and among patients with or without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis. In patients with tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis, we found knee valgus in presence of hindfoot varus deformity and knee varus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle 0.3 ± 2.6° versus -1.8 ± 2.1°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.4 ± 2.2° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis demonstrated knee varus in the presence of hindfoot varus deformity compared with knee valgus in presence of hindfoot valgus deformity (mechanical tibiofemoral angle -2.2 ± 2.2° versus 0.9 ± 2.4°; p < 0.001; mechanical tibia angle -1.8 ± 2.1° versus -4.3 ± 1.9°; p < 0.001). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral varus (r = -0.38) and tibial varus (r = -0.53), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was present (p < 0.001). Conversely, patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more tibiofemoral valgus (r = 0.4) and tibial valgus (r = 0.46), when tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis was absent (p < 0.001). The proximal joint line of the tibia had greater varus orientation in patients with a hindfoot valgus deformity compared with greater valgus orientation in patients with a hindfoot varus deformity (proximal tibial joint line angle 88.5 ± 2.0° versus 90.6 ± 2.2°; p < 0.05). Patients with more valgus deformity in the hindfoot tended to have more varus angulation of the proximal tibial joint line angle (r = 0.31; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis of the tibiotalar joint, varus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot valgus deformity and valgus angulation of the knee was associated with hindfoot varus deformity. Patients without tibiotalar joint osteoarthritis exhibited the same deviation at the level of the knee and hindfoot. These distinct radiographic findings were most pronounced in the alignment of the tibia relative to the hindfoot deformity. This suggests a detailed examination of hindfoot alignment before knee deformity correction at the level of the proximal tibia, to avoid postoperative increase of pre-existing hindfoot deformity. Other differences detected between the radiographic parameters were less pronounced and varied within the subgroups. Future research could identify prospectively which of these parameters contain clinical relevance by progressing osteoarthritis or deformity and how they can be altered by corrective treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Constitutional varus does not affect joint line orientation in the coronal plane.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, we described the distribution of coronal alignment in a normal asymptomatic population and recognized the occurrence of constitutional varus in one of four individuals. It is important to further investigate the influence of this condition on the joint line orientation and how the latter is affected by the onset and progression of arthritis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study are (1) to describe the distribution of joint line orientation in the coronal plane in the normal population; (2) to compare joint line orientation between patients with constitutional varus and neutral mechanical alignment; and (3) to compare joint line orientation between a cohort of patients with prearthritic constitutional varus and a cohort of patients with established symptomatic varus arthritis. METHODS: Full-leg standing hip-to-ankle digital radiographs were performed in 248 young healthy individuals and 532 patients with knee arthritis. Hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle and tibial joint line angle (TJLA) were measured in the coronal plane. Patients were subdivided into varus (HKA ≤ -3°), neutral, and valgus (HKA ≥ 3°). RESULTS: The mean TJLA in healthy subjects was 0.3° (SD 2.0°). TJLA was parallel to the floor in healthy subgroups with neutral alignment (TJLA 0.3°, SD 1.9) and constitutional varus (TJLA 0.2°, SD 2.2°). In patients with symptomatic arthritis and varus alignment, the TJLA opened medially (mean -1.9°, SD 3.5°). CONCLUSIONS: Constitutional varus does not affect joint line orientation. Advanced medial arthritis causes divergence of the joint line from parallel to the floor. These findings influence decision-making for osteotomy and alignment in total knee arthroplasty.