The mechanical alignment (MA) for Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) with neutral alignment goal has had good overall long-term outcomes. In spite of improvements in implant designs and surgical tools aiming for better accuracy and reproducibility of surgical technique, functional outcomes of MA TKA have remained insufficient. Therefore, alternative, more anatomical options restoring part (adjusted MA (aMA) and adjusted kinematic alignment (aKA) techniques) or the entire constitutional frontal deformity (unicompartment knee arthroplasty (UKA) and kinematic alignment (KA) techniques) have been developed, with promising results. The kinematic alignment for TKA is a new and attractive surgical technique enabling a patient specific treatment. The growing evidence of the kinematic alignment mid-term effectiveness, safety and potential short falls are discussed in this paper. The current review describes the rationale and the evidence behind different surgical options for knee replacement, including current concepts in alignment in TKA. We also introduce two new classification systems for “implant alignments options” and “osteoarthritic knees” that would help surgeons to select the best surgical option for each patient. This would also be valuable for comparison between techniques in future research.

A principle of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is to achieve a neutral standing coronal alignment of the limb (Hip Knee Ankle (HKA) angle) to reduce risks of implant loosening, reduce polyethylene wear, and optimise patella tracking. Several long-term studies have questioned this because the relationship between alignment and implant survivorship is weaker than previously reported. We hypothesize standing HKA poorly predicts implant failure because it does not predict dynamic HKA, dynamic adduction moment, and loading of the knee during gait. Therefore, the aim of our study is to assess the relationship between the standing (or static) and the dynamic (gait activity) HKAs.

We performed a prospective study on a cohort of 35 patients (35 knees) who were treated with a posterior-stabilized TKA for primary osteoarthritis between November 2012 and January 2013. Three months after surgery each patient had a standardized digital full-leg coronal radiographs and was classified as neutrally aligned TKA (17 patients), varus aligned (9 patients), and valgus aligned (4 patients). Patients then performed a gait analysis for level walking and dynamic HKA and adduction moment during the stance phase of gait were measured.

We found standing HKA having a moderate correlation with the peak dynamic varus (r=0.318, p=0.001) and the mean and peak adduction moments (r=0.31 and r=-0.352 respectively). In contrast we did not find a significant correlation between standing HKA and the mean dynamic coronal alignment (r=0.14, p=0.449). No significant differences were found for dynamic frontal parameters (dynamic HKA and adduction moment) between patients defined as neutrally aligned or varus aligned.

In our practice, the standing HKA after TKA was of little value to predict dynamic behaviour of the limb during gait. These results may explain why standing coronal alignment after TKA may have limited influence on long term implant fixation and wear.