Calipered Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty Performed With Specific Manual Instrumentation, Verification Checks, and a Decision Tree

2022 ◽  
pp. 22-28
Author(s):  
Stephen M Howell
Author(s):  
Charles Rivière ◽  
Loic Villet ◽  
Dragan Jeremic ◽  
Pascal-André Vendittoli

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 357-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiota Toliopoulos ◽  
Marc-Andre LeBlanc ◽  
Jonathan Hutt ◽  
Martin Lavigne ◽  
Francois Desmeules ◽  
...  

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to compare the intra-operative benefits and the clinical outcomes from kinematic or mechanical alignment for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients undergoing revision of failed unicompartmental kneel arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA.Methods:Ten revisions were performed with a kinematic alignment technique and 11 with a mechanical alignment. Measurements of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), the lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were performed using long-leg radiographs. The need for augments, stems, and constrained inserts was compared between groups. Clinical outcomes were compared using the WOMAC score along with maximum distance walked as well as knee range of motion obtained prior to discharge. All data was obtained by a retrospective review of patient files.Results:The kinematic group required less augments, stems, and constrained inserts than the mechanical group and thinner polyethylene bearings. There were significant differences in the lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) between the two groups (p<0.05). The mean WOMAC score obtained at discharge was better in the kinematic group as was mean knee flexion. At last follow up of 34 months for the kinematic group and 58 months for the mechanical group, no orthopedic complications or reoperations were recorded.Conclusion:Although this study has a small patient cohort, our results suggest that kinematic alignment for TKA after UKA revision is an attractive method. Further studies are warranted.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 427-431
Author(s):  
Salvatore Risitano ◽  
Luigi Sabatini ◽  
Luca Barberis ◽  
Federico Fusini ◽  
Michele Malavolta ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (6 Supple A) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
Sarag Abhari ◽  
Thomas M. Hsing ◽  
Max M. Malkani ◽  
Austin F. Smith ◽  
Langan S. Smith ◽  
...  

Aims Alternative alignment concepts, including kinematic and restricted kinematic, have been introduced to help improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results, along with patient satisfaction, following TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment. Methods A total of 121 consecutive TKAs performed between 11 February 2018 to 11 June 2019 with preoperative varus deformity were reviewed at minimum one-year follow-up. Three knees were excluded due to severe preoperative varus deformity greater than 15°, and a further three due to requiring revision surgery, leaving 109 patients and 115 knees to undergo primary TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment with advanced technology. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the preoperative limb varus deformity: Group A with 1° to 5° varus (43 knees); Group B between 6° and 10° varus (56 knees); and Group C with varus greater than 10° (16 knees). This study group was compared with a matched cohort of 115 TKAs and 115 patients using a neutral mechanical alignment target with manual instruments performed from 24 October 2016 to 14 January 2019. Results Mean overall patient satisfaction for the entire cohort was 4.7 (SE 0.1) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 93% being either very satisfied or satisfied compared with a Likert of 4.3 and patient satisfaction of 81% in the mechanical alignment group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.006 respectively). At mean follow-up of 17 months (11 to 27), the mean overall Likert, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Society Knee and Function Scores were significantly better in the kinematic group than in the neutral mechanical alignment group. The most common complication in both groups was contracture requiring manipulation under anaesthesia, involving seven knees (6.1%) in the kinematic group and nine knees (7.8%) in the mechanical alignment group. Conclusion With the advent of advanced technology, and the ability to obtain accurate bone cuts, the target limb alignment, and soft-tissue balance within millimetres, using a restricted kinematic alignment concept demonstrated excellent patient satisfaction following primary TKA. Longer-term analysis is required as to the durability of this method. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):59–66.


2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (3) ◽  
pp. 276-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Oussedik ◽  
Matthew P. Abdel ◽  
Jan Victor ◽  
Mark W. Pagnano ◽  
Fares S. Haddad

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty is a well-documented phenomenon. Although many factors have been implicated, including modifiable and nonmodifiable patient factors, emphasis over the past decade has been on implant alignment and stability as both a cause of, and a solution to, this problem. Several alignment targets have evolved with a proliferation of techniques following the introduction of computer and robotic-assisted surgery. Mechanical alignment targets may achieve mechanically-sound alignment while ignoring the soft tissue envelope; kinematic alignment respects the soft tissue envelope while ignoring the mechanical environment. Functional alignment is proposed as a hybrid technique to allow mechanically-sound, soft tissue-friendly alignment targets to be identified and achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):276–279.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document