What is the “safe zone” for transition of coronal alignment from systematic to a more personalised one in total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review

Purpose In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), implants are increasingly aligned based on emerging patient-specific alignment strategies, such as unrestricted kinematic alignment (KA), according to their constitutional limb alignment (phenotype alignment), which results in a large proportion of patients having a hip-knee angle (HKA) outside the safe range of ± 3° to 180° traditionally considered in the mechanical alignment strategy. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether alignment outside the safe zone of ± 3° is associated with a higher revision rate and worse clinical outcome than alignment within this range. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and World of Science, with search terms including synonyms and plurals for “total knee arthroplasty”, “alignment”, “outlier”, “malalignment”, “implant survival” and “outcome”. Five studies were identified with a total number of 927 patients and 952 implants. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the WOMAC were used to evaluate the clinical outcome. The follow-up period was between 6 months and 10 years. Results According to HKA 533 knees were aligned within ± 3°, 47 (8.8%) were varus outliers and 121 (22.7%) were valgus outliers. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were found between implants positioned within ± 3° and varus and valgus outliers. Likewise, no significant differences were found regarding revision rates and implant survival. Conclusion The universal use of the “safe zone” of ± 3° derived from the mechanical alignment strategy is hardly applicable to modern personalised alignment strategies in the light of current literature. However, given the conflicting evidence in the literature on the risks of higher revision rates and poorer clinical outcomes especially with greater tibial component deviation, the lack of data on the outcomes of more extreme alignments, and regarding the use of implants for KA TKA that are actually designed for mechanical alignment, there is an urgent need for research to define eventual evidence-based thresholds for new patient-specific alignment strategies, not only for HKA but also for FMA and TMA, also taking into account the preoperative phenotype and implant design. It is of utmost clinical relevance for the application of modern alignment strategies to know which native phenotypes may be reproduced with a TKA. Level of evidence IV.

Patient satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty using restricted kinematic alignment

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.

Restoration of Joint Inclination in Total Knee Arthroplasty Offers Little Improvement in Joint Kinematics in Neutrally Aligned Extremities

Kinematically aligned total knee replacements have been shown to better restore physiological kinematics than mechanical alignment and also offer good postoperative satisfaction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent to which an inclined joint line in a kinematically aligned knee can alter the postoperative kinematics. A multi-body dynamic simulation was used to identify kinematic changes in the joint. To accurately compare mechanical alignment, kinematic alignment and a natural knee, a “standard” patient with neutral alignment of the lower extremities was selected for modeling from a joint database. The arthroplasty models in this study were implanted with a single conventional cruciate-retaining prosthesis. Each model was subjected to a flexion movement and the anteroposterior translation of the femoral condyles was collected for kinematic analysis. The results showed that the mechanical alignment model underwent typical paradoxical anterior translation of the femoral condyles. Incorporating an inclined joint line in the model did not prevent the paradoxical anterior translation, but a 3° varus joint line in the kinematic alignment model could reduce the peak value of this motion by about 1 mm. Moreover, the inclined joint line did not restore the motion curve back to within the range of the kinematic curve of the natural knee. The results of this study suggest that an inclined joint line, as in the kinematic alignment model, can slightly suppress paradoxical anterior translation of the femoral condyles, but cannot restore kinematic motions similar to the physiological knee. This finding implies that prostheses intended to be used for kinematic alignment should be designed to optimize knee kinematics with the intention of restoring a physiological motion curve.

The accelerometer-based navigation system demonstrated superior radiological outcomes in restoring mechanical alignment and component sagittal positioning in total knee arthroplasty

Background This study aimed to determine whether the accelerometer-based navigation (ABN) could improve the accuracy of restoring mechanical axis (MA), component positioning, and clinical outcomes compared to conventional (CON) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A total of 301 consecutive patients (ABN: 27, CON: 274) were included. A 1:4 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between the two groups according to preoperative demographic and clinical parameters. The postoperative MA, femoral coronal angle (FCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), tibial coronal angle (TCA) and tibial sagittal angle (TSA) were compared. Absolute deviations of aforementioned angles were calculated as the absolute value of difference between the exact and ideal value and defined as norms if within 3°, otherwise regarded as outliers. Additional clinical parameters, including the Knee Society knee and function scores (KSKS and KSFS) and range of motion (ROM), were assessed at final follow-up (FU) (mean FU was 21.88 and 21.56 months respectively for ABN and CON group). A secondary subgroup analysis and comparison on clinical outcomes were conducted between norms and outliers in different radiological parameters. Results A total of 98 patients/102 knees were analyzed after the PSM (ABN: 21 patients/24 knees, CON: 77 patients/78 knees). In the ABN group, the mean MA, FCA and TSA were significantly improved (p = 0.019, 0.006, < 0.001, respectively). Proportions of TKAs within a ± 3°deviation were significantly improved in all the postoperative radiological variables except for TCA (p = 0.003, 0.021, 0.042, 0.013, respectively for MA, FCA, FSA, and TSA). The absolute deviations of FSA and TSA were also significantly lower in the ABN group (p = 0.020, 0.048, respectively). No significant differences were found in either mean value, absolute deviation or outlier ratio of TCA between two groups. On clinical outcomes, there were no significant differences between two groups, although KSKS, KSFS and ROM (p < 0.01, respectively) dramatically improved compared to baseline. The subgroup analysis also demonstrated no statistical difference on clinical outcomes between the outliers and norms in varied radiological parameters. Conclusions The ABN could improve the accuracy and precision of mechanical alignment and component positioning without significant improvement of clinical outcomes. Further high quality studies with long term FU are warranted to comprehensively evaluate the value of the ABN.

Short- to mid-term outcomes of computer navigation assisted total knee arthroplasty using adjusted mechanical alignment compared to mechanical alignment

Purpose To evaluate efficacy of navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) achieved using adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA) and mechanical alignment (MA) technique. Methods The authors performed a retrospective study enrolled a single-center series of patients who underwent navigation-assisted TKA with aMA (n = 77) and with MA (n = 61) technique. The demographic data was recorded. Functional scores including Hospital for Special Surgery score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score and Forgotten Joint Score-12 were evaluated. In addition, the parameter of resection and soft tissue balance as well as radiographic evaluation was measured and compared between groups. Results The HSS score at 1-month and 6-months postoperatively were significant higher using aMA compared to MA. The postoperative coronal alignment was made with a mean of 1.11° more varus/valgus in the aMA group compared to MA. The femoral prosthesis was positioned in a mean of 2.29° more varus/valgus using aMA compared to MA. The medial extension gap was significantly tighter in the MA group. In addition, the femoral prosthesis in the aMA group was positioned in a mean of 0.77° more external rotation than the MA group. The lateral flexion gap was wider in the aMA group with a mean of 0.71 mm more laxity. Conclusions Both aMA and MA technique in TKA obtained good clinical outcomes. Notably, aMA-TKA grant superior functional scores at 1-month and 6-months follow-up, might due to the preservation of mild constitutional frontal deformity with less release of soft tissue and a biomimetic wider lateral flexion gap was remained.