This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

The December 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Vitamin E infusion helpful in polyethylene; Hip replacement in fracture and arthritis; Non-surgical treatment for arthritis; Cost and approach in hip surgery; Who does well in FAI surgery?; AAOS Thromboembolism guidelines; Thromboprophylaxis and periprosthetic joint infection; Fluid collections not limited to metal-on-metal THR

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

Mechanical alignment has been a fundamental tenet of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) since modern knee replacement surgery was developed in the 1970s. The objective of mechanical alignment was to infer the greatest biomechanical advantage to the implant to prevent early loosening and failure. Over the last 40 years a great deal of innovation in TKA technology has been focusing on how to more accurately achieve mechanical alignment. Recently the concept of mechanical alignment has been challenged, and other alignment philosophies are being explored with the intention of trying to improve patient outcomes following TKA.

This article examines the evolution of the mechanical alignment concept and whether there are any viable alternatives.