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.

The impact of different alignment strategies on bone cuts in total knee arthroplasty for varus knee phenotypes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to visualise the influence of alignment strategy on bone resection in varus knee phenotypes. The hypothesis was that different amounts of bone resection would be required depending on the alignment strategy chosen. Through visualisation of the corresponding bone sections, it was hypothesised, it would be possible to assess which of the different alignment strategies would require the least amount of change to the soft tissues for the chosen phenotype, whilst still ensuring acceptable alignment of the components, and thus could be considered the most ideal alignment strategy. METHODS: Simulations of the different alignment strategies (mechanical, anatomical, constrained kinematic and unconstrained kinematic) in relation to their bone resections were performed on five common exemplary varus knee phenotypes. VARHKA174° VARFMA87° VARTMA84°, VARHKA174° VARFMA90° NEUTMA87°, VARHKA174° NEUFMA93° VARTMA84°, VARHKA177° NEUFMA93° NEUTMA87° and VARHKA177° VALFMA96° VARTMA81°. The phenotype system used categorises knees based on overall limb alignment (i.e. hip knee angle) but also takes into account joint line obliquity (i.e. TKA and FMA) and has been applied in the global orthopaedic community since its introduction in 2019. The simulations are based on long-leg radiographs under load. It is assumed that a change of 1° in the alignment of the joint line corresponds to a displacement of the distal condyle by 1 mm. RESULTS: In the most common phenotype VARHKA174° NEUFMA93° VARTMA84°, a mechanical alignment would result in an asymmetric elevation of the tibial medial joint line by 6 mm and a lateral distalisation of the femoral condyle by 3 mm, an anatomical alignment only by 0 and 3 mm, a restricted by 3 and 3 mm, respectively, whilst a kinematic alignment would result in no change in joint line obliquity. In the similarly common phenotype 2 VARHKA174° VARFMA90° NEUTMA87° with the same HKA, the changes are considerably less with only 3 mm asymmetric height change on one joint side, respectively, and no change in restricted or kinematic alignment. CONCLUSION: This study shows that significantly different amounts of bone resection are required depending on the varus phenotype and the alignment strategy chosen. Based on the simulations performed, it can, therefore, be assumed that an individual decision for the respective phenotype is more important than the dogmatically correct alignment strategy. By including such simulations, the modern orthopaedic surgeon can now avoid biomechanically inferior alignments and still obtain the most natural possible knee alignment for the patient.

The impact of different alignment strategies on bone cuts for neutral knee phenotypes in total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to simulate and visualise the influence of the alignment strategy on bone resection in neutral knee phenotypes. It was hypothesised that different amounts of bone resection would be required depending on the alignment strategy chosen. The hypothesis was that by visualising the corresponding bone cuts, it would be possible to assess which of the different alignment strategies required the least change to the soft tissues for the chosen phenotype but still ensured acceptable component alignment and could, therefore, be considered the most ideal alignment strategy. METHODS: Simulations of the different alignment strategies (mechanical, anatomical, restricted kinematic and unrestricted kinematic) regarding their bone resections were performed on four common exemplary neutral knee phenotypes. NEUHKA0° VARFMA 90° VALTMA90°, NEUHKA0° NEUFMA 93° NEUTMA87°, NEUHKA0° VALFMA 96° NEUTMA87° and NEUHKA0° VALFMA 99° VARTMA84°. The phenotype system used categorises knees based on overall limb alignment (i.e. hip knee angle) but also considers joint line obliquity (i.e. TKA and FMA) and has been used globally since its introduction in 2019. These simulations are based on long leg weightbearing radiographs. It is assumed that a change of 1° in the alignment of the joint line corresponds to correspond to 1 mm of distal condyle offset. RESULTS: In the most common neutral phenotype NEUHKA0° NEUFMA 93° NEUTMA87°, with a prevalence of 30%, bone cuts remain below 4 mm regardless of alignment strategy. The greatest changes in the obliquity of the joint line can be expected for the mechanical alignment of the phenotype NEUHKA0° VALFMA 99° VARTMA84° where the medial tibia is raised by 6 mm and the lateral femur is shifted distally by 9 mm. In contrast, the NEUHKA0° VARFMA 90° VALTMA90° phenotype requires no change in joint line obliquity if the mechanical alignment strategy is used. CONCLUSION: Illustrations of alignment strategies help the treating surgeon to estimate the postoperative joint line obliquity. When considering the alignment strategy, it seems reasonable to prefer a strategy where the joint line obliquity is changed as little as possible. Although for the most common neutral knee phenotype the choice of alignment strategy seems to be of negligible importance, in general, even for neutral phenotypes, large differences in bone cuts can be observed depending on the choice of alignment strategy.

Osteoarthritic and non-osteoarthritic patients show comparable coronal knee joint line orientations in a cross-sectional study based on 3D reconstructed CT images.

PURPOSE: Recently introduced total knee arthroplasty (TKA) alignment strategies aim to restore the pre-arthritic alignment of an individual patient. The native alignment of a patient can only be restored with detailed knowledge about the native and osteoarthritic alignment as well as differences between them. The first aim of this study was to assess the alignment of a large series of osteoarthritic (OA) knees and investigate whether femoral and tibial joint lines vary within patients with the same overall lower limb alignment. The secondary aim was to compare the alignment of OA patients to the previously published data of non-OA patients. This information could be useful for surgeons considering implementing one of the new alignment concepts. MATERIAL: Coronal alignment parameters of 2692 knee OA patients were measured based on 3D reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software (Knee-PLAN®, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of either the overall alignment, the femoral joint line orientation or the tibial joint line orientation. Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ± 1.5° from this mean. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients of this study and non-OA patients of a previously published study) as well as between HKA subgroups (varus, valgus and neutral) using t tests and Chi-square tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Femoral and tibial joint lines varied within patients with the same overall lower limb alignment. A total of 162 functional knee phenotypes were found (119 males, 136 females and 94 mutual phenotypes). Mean values differed between the OA and non-OA population, but differences were small (< 2°) except for the overall alignment (e.g. HKA). The distribution of OA and non-OA patients among the phenotypes differed significantly, especially among the limb phenotypes. CONCLUSION: Differences between OA and non-OA knees are small regarding coronal femoral and tibial joint line orientation. Femoral and tibial joint line orientation of osteoarthritic patients can, therefore, be used to estimate their native coronal alignment and plan an individualized knee alignment. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: III.

Phenotyping of hip-knee-ankle angle in young non-osteoarthritic knees provides better understanding of native alignment variability.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of knowledge about the native coronal knee alignment in 3D. The currently used classification system (neutral, valgus and varus) oversimplifies the coronal knee alignment. The purpose of this study was therefore (1) to investigate the coronal knee alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees using 3D-reconstructed CT images and (2) to introduce a classification system for the overall knee alignment based on phenotypes. METHODS: The hospital registry was searched for patients younger than 45 years and older than 16, who received a CT according to the Imperial Knee Protocol. Patients with prosthesis, osteoarthritis, fractures or injury of the collateral ligaments were excluded. Finally, 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients remained (102 males and 58 females, mean age ± standard deviation (SD) 30 ± 7 years). The overall lower limb alignment was defined as the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), which is formed by lines connecting the centers of the femoral head, the knee and the talus. The angle was measured using a commercially planning software (KneePLAN 3D, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). Descriptive statistics, such as means, ranges, and measures of variance (e.g., standard deviations) are presented. Based on these results, the currently used classification system was evaluated and a new system, based on phenotypes, was introduced. These phenotypes consist of a phenotype-specific mean value (a HKA value) and cover a range of ± 1.5° from this mean (e.g., 183° ± 1.5°). The mean values represent 3° increments of the angle starting from the overall mean value (mean HKA = 180°; 3° increments = 183° and 177°, 186° and 174°). The distribution of these limb phenotypes was assessed. RESULTS: The overall mean HKA was 179.7° ± 2.9° varus and values ranged from 172.6° varus to 187.1° valgus. The mean HKA values for male and female were 179.2° ± 2.8° and 180.5° ± 2.8°, respectively, which implied a significant gender difference (r2 = 0.23). The most common limb phenotype in males was NEUHKA0° (36.4%), followed by VARHKA3° (29.2%) and VALHKA3° (23.1%). The most common limb phenotype in females was NEUHKA0° (36.4%), followed by VALHKA3° (22.1%) and VARHKA3° (15.0%). CONCLUSION: The measurements using 3D-reconstructed CT images confirmed the great variability of the overall lower limb alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees. However, the currently used classification system (neutral, varus, valgus) oversimplifies the coronal alignment and therefore the introduced classification system, based on limb phenotypes, should be used. This will help to better understand individual coronal knee alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Phenotyping the knee in young non-osteoarthritic knees shows a wide distribution of femoral and tibial coronal alignment.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of knowledge about the joint line orientation of the femur and tibia in non-osteoarthritic knees. The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate the orientation of the joint lines in native non-osteoarthritic knees using 3D-reconstructed CT scans. The secondary purpose was to identify knee phenotypes to combine the information of the femoral and tibial alignment. METHODS: A total of 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients (male to female ratio = 102:58, mean age ± standard deviation 30 ± 7 years (16-44 years) were retrospectively included from our registry. All patients received CT of the knee according to the Imperial Knee Protocol. The orientation of the femoral and tibial joint line was measured in relation to their mechanical axis (femoral mechanical angle, FMA, and tibial mechanical angle, TMA) using a commercially planning software (KneePLAN 3D, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). The values of FMA and TMA were compared between males and females. Descriptive statistics, such as means, ranges, and measures of variance (e.g. standard deviations), were presented. Based on these results, phenotypes were introduced for the femur and tibia. These phenotypes, based on FMA and TMA values, consist of a mean value and cover a range of ± 1.5° from this mean (3° increments). The distribution of femoral and tibial phenotypes, and their combinations (knee phenotypes) were calculated for the total group and for both genders. RESULTS: The overall mean FMA ± standard deviation (SD) was 93.4° ± 2.0° and values ranged from 87.9° varus to 100° valgus. The overall mean TMA ± SD was 87.2° ± 2.4° with a range of 81.3° varus to 94.6° valgus. FMA and TMA showed significant gender differences (p < 0.01). Females showed more valgus alignment than males. The most common femoral phenotype was neutral in both genders. The most common tibial phenotype was neutral in the male knees (62.8%) and valgus (41.6%) in the female knees. In males, the most frequent combination (knee phenotype) was a neutral phenotype in the femur and a neutral phenotype in the tibia (25.6%). In females, it was a neutral femoral phenotype and a valgus tibial phenotype (28.3%). CONCLUSION: 3D-reconstructed CT scans confirmed the great variability of the joint line orientation in non-osteoarthritic knees. The introduced femoral and tibial phenotypes enable the evaluation of the femoral and tibial alignment together (knee phenotypes). The variability of knee phenotypes found in this young non-osteoarthritic population clearly shows the need for a more individualized approach in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.