Abstract
Most orthopaedic surgeons believe that total knee replacement has superb patient outcomes. Long-term results are excellent, with one study showing 15 year survivorship of 97%. However, our objective assessments of our patients' results are greater than patients' subjective assessments. In a study by Dickstein of total knee patients, one-third were not satisfied even though they were all thought to have had successful results by their orthopaedic surgeons. Noble and Conditt's study showed 14% of patients dissatisfied with their outcome with more than half expressing problems with routine activities of daily living. We are puzzled by this patient dissatisfaction since radiographs usually show normal component alignment and positioning. Perhaps some of these patients have subtle soft tissue imbalance and kinematic maltracking.
Excellent aligned bone cuts can be expected with modern instrumentation, especially if patient specific cutting instruments or computer navigation are used. However, inadequate instrumentation exists for soft tissue balancing. It is usually based on feel and visual estimation. Soft tissue balancing techniques are difficult to teach and perform by a less experienced surgeon.
Smart trials with load bearing and alignment sensors, which can be used with the medial retinaculum closed, will demonstrate the total knee kinematics and quantify soft tissue balance. Graduated soft tissue balancing can be performed while visualising changes in compartment loads. Studies are ongoing with smart trials to establish evidence-based clinical algorithms for soft tissue balancing and document the effects of these techniques on patient satisfaction and long-term outcome.
