Biomechanical Comparison of Kinematic and Mechanical Knee Alignment Techniques in a Computer Simulation Medial Pivot Total Knee Arthroplasty Model

Several concepts may be used to restore normal knee kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. One is a kinematically aligned (KA) technique, which restores the native joint line and limb alignment, and the other is the use of a medial pivot knee (MPK) design, with a ball and socket joint in the medial compartment. This study aimed to compare motions, contact forces, and contact stress between mechanically aligned (MA) and KA (medial tilt 3° [KA3] and 5° [KA5]) models in MPK. An MPK design was virtually implanted with MA, KA3, and KA5 in a validated musculoskeletal computer model of a healthy knee, and the simulation of motion and contact forces was implemented. Anteroposterior (AP) positions, mediolateral positions, external rotation angles of the femoral component relative to the tibial insert, and tibiofemoral contact forces were evaluated at different knee flexion angles. Contact stresses on the tibial insert were calculated using finite element analysis. The AP position at the medial compartment was consistent for all models. From 0° to 120°, the femoral component in KA models showed larger posterior movement at the lateral compartment (0.3, 6.8, and 17.7 mm in MA, KA3, and KA5 models, respectively) and larger external rotation (4.2°, 12.0°, and 16.8° in the MA, KA3, and KA5 models, respectively) relative to the tibial component. Concerning the mediolateral position of the femoral component, the KA5 model was positioned more medially. The contact forces at the lateral compartment of all models were larger than those at the medial compartment at >60° of knee flexion. The peak contact stresses on the tibiofemoral joint at 90° and 120° of knee flexion were higher in the KA models. However, the peak contact stresses of the KA models at every flexion angle were <20 MPa. The KA technique in MPK can successfully achieve near-normal knee kinematics; however, there may be a concern for higher contact stresses on the tibial insert.

Is the femoral component flexion affected by the sagittal femoral shaft bowing in conventional intramedullary guided TKA?

Background The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of sagittal femoral bowing on sagittal femoral component alignment, and whether there was correlation between sagittal femoral component alignment and coronal femoral component alignment. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 77 knees in 71 patients who had undergone primary TKA for advanced osteoarthritis. All surgeries were performed by using a standard medial parapatellar approach. The osteotomy was performed with a conventional technique using an intramedullary rod for the femur and a mechanical extramedullary guiding system for the tibia. All patients enrolled in the study were evaluated with full-length lower extremity load-bearing standing scanograms, and the patients had preoperative and postoperative radiographs of the knees. Coronal femoral bowing angle (cFBA), sagittal femoral bowing angle (sFBA), and postoperatively, mechanical tibiofemoral angle of the knee (mTFA), β angle (femoral component flexion angle) were measured. The radiographic results of both groups were compared using Student's t test. A two-sided Pearson correlation coefficient was obtained to identify the correlations between FBA in the coronal and sagittal planes, as well as FBA and age or BMI, sFBA and β angle, cFBA and mTFA. Comparison of FSB incidence between different genders was made using Chi-square test. The p value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference. Results The mean sFBA, cFBA, β angle, mTFA were 9.34° ± 3.56°(range 1°–16°), 3.25° ± 3.79°(range − 7° to −17°), 3.91° ± 3.15°(range − 1° to −13°), 0.60° ± 1.95°(range − 3° to −6°), respectively. There was no correlation between age and sFBA (CC = 0.192, p = 0.194) or cFBA (CC = 0.192, p = 0.194); similarly, there was no correlation between age and sFBA (CC = 0.067, p = 0.565) or cFBA (CC = 0.069, p = 0.549). The sFBA was correlated with cFBA and β angle (CC = 0.540, p < 0.01; CC = 0.543, p < 0.01, respectively), and the cFBA was correlated with mTFA (CC = 0.430, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference (p = 0.247) of cFBA between the patients with sFSB and the patients without sFSB. Conclusions The current study showed that the sFBA was correlated with cFBA in the patients undergoing TKA and the patients with sFSB usually presented non-cFSB. We also found that sFSB could affect the femoral component alignment in the sagittal plane and cFSB could affect the femoral component alignment in the coronal plane. The sFBA or cFBA was not correlated with age, BMI, or gender.

Notching is less, if femoral component sagittal positioning is planned perpendicular to distal femur anterior cortex axis, in navigated TKA

Purpose In navigated TKA, the risk of notching is high if femoral component sagittal positioning is planned perpendicular to the sagittal mechanical axis of femur (SMX). We intended to determine if, by opting to place the femoral component perpendicular to distal femur anterior cortex axis (DCX), notching can be reduced in navigated TKA. Methods We studied 171 patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral computer-assisted TKA. Femoral component sagittal positioning was planned perpendicular to SMX in one knee (Femur Anterior Bowing Registration Disabled, i.e. FBRD group) and perpendicular to DCX in the opposite knee (Femur Anterior Bowing Registration Enabled, i.e. FBRE group). Incidence and depth of notching were recorded in both groups. For FBRE knees, distal anterior cortex angle (DCA), which is the angle between SMX and DCX, was calculated by the computer. Results Incidence and mean depth of notching was less (p = 0.0007 and 0.009) in FBRE versus FBRD group, i.e. 7% versus 19.9% and 0.98 mm versus 1.53 mm, respectively. Notching was very high (61.8%) in FBRD limbs when the anterior bowing was severe (DCA > 3°) in the contralateral (FBRE) limbs. Conclusion Notching was less when femoral component sagittal positioning was planned perpendicular to DCX, in navigated TKA. Level of evidence Therapeutic level II.

Appropriate determination of the surgical transepicondylar axis can be achieved following distal femur resection in navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty

Background Many surgeons have determined the surgical transepicondylar axis (sTEA) after distal femur resection in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, in most navigation systems, the registration of the sTEA precedes the distal femur resection. This sequential difference can influence the accuracy of intraoperative determination for sTEA when considering the proximal location of the anatomical references for sTEA and the arthritic environment. We compared the accuracy and precision in determinations of the sTEA between before and after distal femur resection during navigation-assisted TKA. Methods Ninety TKAs with Attune posterior-stabilized prostheses were performed under imageless navigation. The sTEA was registered before distal femur resection, then reassessed and adjusted after distal resection. The femoral component was implanted finally according to the sTEA determined after distal femur resection. Computed tomography (CT) was performed postoperatively to analyze the true sTEA (the line connecting the tip of the lateral femoral epicondyle to the lowest point of the medial femoral epicondylar sulcus on axial CT images) and femoral component rotation (FCR) axis. The FCR angle after distal femur resection (FCRA-aR) was defined as the angle between the FCR axis and true sTEA on CT images. The FCR angle before distal resection (FCRA-bR) could be presumed to be the value of FCRA-aR minus the difference between the intraoperatively determined sTEAs before and after distal resection as indicated by the navigation system. It was considered that the FCRA-bR or FCRA-aR represented the differences between the sTEA determined before or after distal femur resection and the true sTEA, respectively. Results The FCRA-bR was −1.3 ± 2.4° and FCRA-aR was 0.3 ± 1.7° (p < 0.001). The range of FCRA-bR was from −6.6° to 4.1° and that of FCRA-aR was from −2.7° to 3.3°. The proportion of appropriate FCRA (≤ ±3°) was significantly higher after distal femur resection than that before resection (91.1% versus 70%; p < 0.001). Conclusions The FCR was more appropriate when the sTEA was determined after distal femur resection than before resection in navigation-assisted TKA. The reassessment and adjusted registration of sTEA after distal femur resection could improve the rotational alignment of the femoral component in navigation-assisted TKA. Level of evidence IV.