Abstract
Introduction
Total Knee Replacement (TKR) alignment measured intra-operatively with Navigation has been shown to differ from that observed in long leg radiographs (Deep 2011). Potential explanations for this discrepancy may be the effect of weight bearing or the dynamic contributions of soft tissue loads.
Method
A validated, 3D, dynamic patient specific musculoskeletal model was used to analyse 85 post-operative CT scans using a common implant design. Differences in coronal and axial plane tibio-femoral alignment in three separate scenarios were measured:
-
Unloaded as measured in a post-op CT
-
Unloaded, with femoral and tibial components set aligned to each other
-
Weight bearing with the extensor mechanism engaged
Scenario number two illustrates the tibio-femoral alignment when the femoral component sits congruently on the tibia with no soft tissue acting whereas scenario three is progression of scenario number two with weight applied and all ligaments are active. Two tailed paired students t-test were used to determine significant differences in the means of absolute difference of axial and coronal alignments.
Results
The mean coronal alignment were 1.7° ± 2.1° varus (range, −3.0° to 7.0°), 0.8° ± 2.0° varus (range, −3.7° to 4.8°), 0.4° ± 2.0° varus (range, −3.9° to 5.1°) for unloaded, unloaded with implants set aligned and weight bearing scenarios respectively. The mean of absolute difference in coronal alignment between the unloaded and weight bearing scenario was 1.8° ± 1.5° (range 0.0° to 5.9°).
The mean axial alignment were 6.8° ± 5.5° external rotation (ER) (range, 20.0° ER to 11.0° internal rotation (IR)), 5.2° ± 6.1° ER (range, 24.8° ER to 12.6° IR), 7.1° ± 5.5° ER (range, 20.7° ER to 6.8° IR) for unloaded, unloaded with implants set to congruency and weight bearing scenarios respectively. The mean of absolute difference in axial alignment between the unloaded and weight bearing scenario was 2.8° ± 2.0° (range 0.1° to 8.8°). Statistically significant absolute differences in coronal and axial alignments were found.
Conclusions
‘Correct’ alignment has long been considered and important predictor of longevity and function following TKR surgery (Sikorski 2008). However, recent reports have challenged these long held beliefs. One possible reason is that these alignments are measured in static condition, not in a functional position where soft tissue is active.
This study showed that knee joint alignment changes significantly between unloaded and loaded scenarios. This suggest that static, unloaded measurements do not represent functional alignment. Thus, tibio-femoral alignment measured from unloaded condition may not describe a ‘correct’ alignment for a particular patient. Further work should focus on dynamic and functional descriptions of component and/or limb alignment.
