The kinematic alignment (KA) approach to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently increased in popularity. Accordingly, a number of derivatives have arisen and have caused confusion. Clarification is therefore needed for a better understanding of KA-TKA. Calipered (or true, pure) KA is performed by cutting the bone parallel to the articular surface, compensating for cartilage wear. In soft-tissue respecting KA, the tibial cutting surface is decided parallel to the femoral cutting surface (or trial component) with in-line traction. These approaches are categorized as unrestricted KA because there is no consideration of leg alignment or component orientation. Restricted KA is an approach where the periarthritic joint surface is replicated within a safe range, due to concerns about extreme alignments that have been considered ‘alignment outliers’ in the neutral mechanical alignment approach. More recently, functional alignment and inverse kinematic alignment have been advocated, where bone cuts are made following intraoperative planning, using intraoperative measurements acquired with computer assistance to fulfill good coordination of soft-tissue balance and alignment. The KA-TKA approach aims to restore the patients’ own harmony of three knee elements (morphology, soft-tissue balance, and alignment) and eventually the patients’ own kinematics. The respective approaches start from different points corresponding to one of the elements, yet each aim for the same goal, although the existing implants and techniques have not yet perfectly fulfilled that goal

Aims. Alternative alignment concepts, including kinematic and restricted kinematic, have been introduced to help improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results, along with patient satisfaction, following TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment. Methods. A total of 121 consecutive TKAs performed between 11 February 2018 to 11 June 2019 with preoperative varus deformity were reviewed at minimum one-year follow-up. Three knees were excluded due to severe preoperative varus deformity greater than 15°, and a further three due to requiring revision surgery, leaving 109 patients and 115 knees to undergo primary TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment with advanced technology. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the preoperative limb varus deformity: Group A with 1° to 5° varus (43 knees); Group B between 6° and 10° varus (56 knees); and Group C with varus greater than 10° (16 knees). This study group was compared with a matched cohort of 115 TKAs and 115 patients using a neutral mechanical alignment target with manual instruments performed from 24 October 2016 to 14 January 2019. Results. Mean overall patient satisfaction for the entire cohort was 4.7 (SE 0.1) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 93% being either very satisfied or satisfied compared with a Likert of 4.3 and patient satisfaction of 81% in the mechanical alignment group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.006 respectively). At mean follow-up of 17 months (11 to 27), the mean overall Likert, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Society Knee and Function Scores were significantly better in the kinematic group than in the neutral mechanical alignment group. The most common complication in both groups was contracture requiring manipulation under anaesthesia, involving seven knees (6.1%) in the kinematic group and nine knees (7.8%) in the mechanical alignment group. Conclusion. With the advent of advanced technology, and the ability to obtain accurate bone cuts, the target limb alignment, and soft-tissue balance within millimetres, using a restricted kinematic alignment concept demonstrated excellent patient satisfaction following primary TKA. Longer-term analysis is required as to the durability of this method. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):59–66

Aims. The mid-term results of kinematic alignment (KA) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using image derived instrumentation (IDI) have not been reported in detail, and questions remain regarding ligamentous stability and revisions. This paper aims to address the following: 1) what is the distribution of alignment of KA TKAs using IDI; 2) is a TKA alignment category associated with increased risk of failure or poor patient outcomes; 3) does extending limb alignment lead to changes in soft-tissue laxity; and 4) what is the five-year survivorship and outcomes of KA TKA using IDI?. Methods. A prospective, multicentre, trial enrolled 100 patients undergoing KA TKA using IDI, with follow-up to five years. Alignment measures were conducted pre- and postoperatively to assess constitutional alignment and final implant position. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of pain and function were also included. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry was used to assess survivorship. Results. The postoperative HKA distribution varied from 9° varus to 11° valgus. All PROMs showed statistical improvements at one year (p < 0.001), with further improvements at five years for Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score symptoms (p = 0.041) and Forgotten Joint Score (p = 0.011). Correlation analysis showed no difference (p = 0.610) between the hip-knee-ankle and joint line congruence angle at one and five years. Sub-group analysis showed no difference in PROMs for patients placed within 3° of neutral compared to those placed > 3°. There were no revisions for tibial loosening; however, there were reports of a higher incidence of poor patella tracking and patellofemoral stiffness. Conclusion. PROMs were not impacted by postoperative alignment category. Ligamentous stability was maintained at five years with joint line obliquity. There were no revisions for tibial loosening despite a significant portion of tibiae placed in varus; however, KA executed with IDI resulted in a higher than anticipated rate of patella complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):656–665

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate if total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral components aligned in either mechanical alignment (MA) or kinematic alignment (KA) are more biomimetic concerning trochlear sulcus orientation and restoration of trochlear height. Methods. Bone surfaces from 1,012 CT scans of non-arthritic femora were segmented using a modelling and analytics system. TKA femoral components (Triathlon; Stryker) were virtually implanted in both MA and KA. Trochlear sulcus orientation was assessed by measuring the distal trochlear sulcus angle (DTSA) in native femora and in KA and MA prosthetic femoral components. Trochlear anatomy restoration was evaluated by measuring the differences in medial, lateral, and sulcus trochlear height between native femora and KA and MA prosthetic femoral components. Results. Femoral components in both MA and KA alignments exhibited a more valgus DTSA compared to native femora. However, DTSA deviation from native was significantly less in KA than in MA (4.8° (SD 2.2°) vs 8.8° (SD 1.8°); p < 0.001). DTSA deviation from native orientation correlated positively with the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) in KA and negatively in MA (r = 0.53, p < 0.001; r = -0.18, p < 0.001). Medial trochlear height was not restored with either MA or KA, with MA resulting in lower medial trochlear height than KA in the proximal 20% of the trochlea. Lateral and sulcus trochlear height was not restored with either alignment in the proximal 80% of the trochlea. At the terminal arc point, KA replicated sulcus and lateral trochlear height, while MA led to over-restoration. Conclusion. Femoral components aligned in KA demonstrated greater biomimetic qualities than those in MA regarding trochlear sulcus orientation and trochlear height restoration, particularly in valgus femora. Variability across knees was observed, warranting further research to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):817–825

Aims. Patient-specific instrumentation of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a technique permitting the targeting of individual kinematic alignment, but deviation from a neutral mechanical axis may have implications on implant fixation and therefore survivorship. The primary objective of this randomized controlled study was to compare the fixation of tibial components implanted with patient-specific instrumentation targeting kinematic alignment (KA+PSI) versus components placed using computer-assisted surgery targeting neutral mechanical alignment (MA+CAS). Tibial component migration measured by radiostereometric analysis was the primary outcome measure (compared longitudinally between groups and to published acceptable thresholds). Secondary outcome measures were inducible displacement after one year and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) over two years. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between alignment and both tibial component migration and inducible displacement. Patients and Methods. A total of 47 patients due to undergo TKA were randomized to KA+PSI (n = 24) or MA+CAS (n = 23). In the KA+PSI group, there were 16 female and eight male patients with a mean age of 64 years (. sd. 8). In the MA+CAS group, there were 17 female and six male patients with a mean age of 63 years (. sd. 7). Surgery was performed using cemented, cruciate-retaining Triathlon total knees with patellar resurfacing, and patients were followed up for two years. The effect of alignment on tibial component migration and inducible displacement was analyzed irrespective of study group. Results. There was no difference over two years in longitudinal migration of the tibial component between the KA+PSI and MA+CAS groups (reaching median maximum total point motion migration at two years of 0.40 mm for the KA+PSI group and 0.37 mm for the MA+CAS group, p = 0.82; p = 0.68 adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) for all follow-ups). Both groups had mean migrations below acceptable thresholds. There was no difference in inducible displacement (p = 0.34) or PROMS (p = 0.61 for the Oxford Knee Score) between groups. There was no correlation between alignment and tibial component migration or alignment and inducible displacement. These findings support non-neutral alignment as a viable option with this component, with no evidence that it compromises fixation. Conclusion. Kinematic alignment using patient-specific instrumentation in TKA was associated with acceptable tibial component migration, indicating stable fixation. These results are supportive of future investigations of kinematic alignment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:929–940

Even though primary total knee arthroplasty involves resurfacing the joint with metal and plastic it is much more of a soft tissue operation than it is a bony procedure. The idea that altering the planned bony resection by a few degrees on either the tibial or femoral side of the joint might somehow eliminate the multifactorial pain complaints and reduced patient satisfaction seen in some 20% or more of cases in reported clinical series is clearly overly optimistic. Axial alignment is important, but no more so than the level of distal femoral resection, tibial and femoral rotation, tibial resection level and downslope and femoral sagittal plane alignment. The real problem is that errors in component positioning are common, rarely made one at a time, and are made more common by greater procedural complexity. No matter the resection method (let alone the resection target!) errors are commonly linked and iterative. For example: femoral malrotation on an under-resected distal femur (in a knee with minimal arthritic wear to begin with) can contribute to corresponding tibial malrotation helped by a “floated” tibial trial on an all too often overly resected and downsloped tibial surface that has been recut to allow full extension with the under-resected femur (and now also results in AP laxity in flexion). Small changes in the alignment target will not fix this!. On the other hand: Kinematic alignment individualised to the patient's anatomy as a means of reducing soft tissue imbalance and minimizing ligamentous releases is actually a reasonable objective and a laudable goal on the surface. The problem with operationalizing this widely relates to what is currently required to try and reliably achieve this goal using currently available implants and technology. In the early 1980's the proponents of “anatomic” alignment with a residual 2- to 3-degree varus tibial resection and corresponding joint obliquity were Hungerford and Krackow. This concept was widely adopted but proved to be fraught with difficulty in the hands of community based surgeons in that era due to common excessive varus tibial resection errors and resulting premature implant failures. Recent reports on kinematic alignment involve a plethora of technology combinations including pre-operative CT (or MRI) for 3D reconstruction and planning, custom jig fabrication, and navigated bony preparation or individualised bony cuts off of patient specific jigs. The goal is to allow customised resections that “estimate” original cartilage thickness and bone erosion and seek to replicate the original however native anatomy and provide better precision for bone resection. Even when successful this is often followed by placement of a standard implant not too different from those in the 80's and 90's which may well have one femoral articular “J curve” for all patents, a single patellofemoral groove design and anatomic shape for all, and that makes use of a central keel on a nonanatomic tibial design with limited sizing increments, all implanted into a patient without an ACL and not infrequently PCL deficient as well. And all of this is done with the hope of restoring the normal original knee kinematics!. The frequent combination of several of the above factors clinically in a single knee may help explain some of the variability in results of kinematic alignment reported by some authors even after excluding certain pre-operative deformities (excess valgus or varus). For now mechanical alignment methods and instrumentation should remain the standard of care for routine TKA practice for most, and in complex primary cases for all

Aims. The aims of this study were: 1) to describe extended restricted kinematic alignment (E-rKA), a novel alignment strategy during robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA); 2) to compare residual medial compartment tightness following virtual surgical planning during RA-TKA using mechanical alignment (MA) and E-rKA, in the same set of osteoarthritic varus knees; 3) to assess the requirement of soft-tissue releases during RA-TKA using E-rKA; and 4) to compare the accuracy of surgical plan execution between knees managed with adjustments in component positioning alone, and those which require additional soft-tissue releases. Methods. Patients who underwent RA-TKA between January and December 2022 for primary varus osteoarthritis were included. Safe boundaries for E-rKA were defined. Residual medial compartment tightness was compared following virtual surgical planning using E-rKA and MA, in the same set of knees. Soft-tissue releases were documented. Errors in postoperative alignment in relation to planned alignment were compared between patients who did (group A) and did not (group B) require soft-tissue releases. Results. The use of E-rKA helped restore all knees within the predefined boundaries, with appropriate soft-tissue balancing. E-rKA compared with MA resulted in reduced residual medial tightness following surgical planning, in full extension (2.71 mm (SD 1.66) vs 5.16 mm (SD 3.10), respectively; p < 0.001), and 90° of flexion (2.52 mm (SD 1.63) vs 6.27 mm (SD 3.11), respectively; p < 0.001). Among the study population, 156 patients (78%) were managed with minor adjustments in component positioning alone, while 44 (22%) required additional soft-tissue releases. The mean errors in postoperative alignment were 0.53 mm and 0.26 mm among patients in group A and group B, respectively (p = 0.328). Conclusion. E-rKA is an effective and reproducible alignment strategy during RA-TKA, permitting a large proportion of patients to be managed without soft-tissue releases. The execution of minor alterations in component positioning within predefined multiplanar boundaries is a better starting point for gap management than soft-tissue releases. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):628–636

Introduction. Most surgeons that have performed kinematically aligned TKA have noticed an overall better clinical outcome, better motion, better patient satisfaction, and a quicker recovery than their patients treated with mechanically aligned TKA. Materials and Methods. We prospectively followed all 128 knees who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty. The Lysholm knee score and VAS scale was recorded initially and 12months after the surgery. Independent T-test was used for statistical analysis at probability level of 95%. SPSS for Windows (Version 12, Chicago, Illinois) was used. Results. VAS score and passive ROM; Not significant difference statistically. But improved compared the preoperative and postoperative data. WOMAC score and HSS score; Significantly improved statistically. Discussion. Our data suggest that kinematic alignment may lessen the surgical stress experienced by the patient, reduce the pain, and increase function of knee. There is a need for more studies to clarify benefits of kinematic alignment technique. Kinematically aligned TKA restores function by aligning the femoral and tibial components to the normal or prearthritic joint lines of the knee. We prospectively followed all 128 knees who underwent total knee arthroplasty. We assessed postoperative function using the VAS, WOMAC, HSS score and passive ROM. HSS score and WOMAC score were significantly improved statistically

Kinematic alignment has increased in popularity over the last few years in an attempt to improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In our unit kinematic alignment has been used with patient-specific cutting guides as part of on-going clinical trials. We performed a retrospective analysis on all the TKA which had been planned to be implanted outside of the mechanical axis (0° ± 3°) based on pre-operative MRI scans and looked at their radiographic and clinical outcomes. We identified 21 knees which had been implanted as ‘planned outliers’. All had clinical and radiographic follow up to a mean 11.6 months post op. All had a standard long leg alignment radiograph performed at 6 weeks post op to confirm alignment. All patients had a good improvement in their Oxford Knee Scores with mean improvement from 23 pre-op to 42 at 1 year. Of our patients none had a poor clinical outcome due to the alignment of their TKA, 1 patient had a poor outcome because of a quadriceps rupture which occurred 4 months post-op. There were no post-operative radiographic abnormalities. In our unit kinematic alignment outside of the mechanical axis is not associated with an increased rate of short term complications

Mechanical alignment (MA) techniques for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) introduces significant anatomic modifications and secondary ligament imbalances. A restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) protocol was proposed to minimise these issues and improve TKA clinical results. A total of 1000 knee CT-Scans were analyzed from a database of patients undergoing TKA. rKA tibial and femoral bone resections were simulated. rKA is defined by the following criteria: Independent tibial and femoral cuts within ± 5° of the bone neutral mechanical axis and, a resulting HKA within ± 3° of neutral. Medial-lateral (ΔML) and flexion-extension (ΔFE) gap differences were calculated and compared with MA results. With the MA technique, femoral rotation was aligned with either the trans-epicondylar axis (TEA) or with 3° of external rotation to the posterior condyles (PC). Extension space ML imbalances (>/=3mm) occurred in 33% of TKA with MA technique versus 8% of the knees with rKA (p /=5mm) were present in up to 11% of MA knees versus 1% rKA (p < 0 .001). Using the MA technique, for the flexion space ΔML, higher imbalance rates were created by the TEA technique (p < 0 .001). rKA again performed better than both MA techniques using TEA of 3 degrees PC techniques (p < 0 .001). When all the differences between ΔML and ΔFE are considered together: using TEA there were 40.8% of the knees with < 3 mm imbalances throughout, using PC this was 55.3% and using rKA it was 91.5% of the knees (p < 0 .001). Significantly less anatomic modifications with related ML or FE gap imbalances are created using rKA versus MA for TKA. Using rKA may help the surgeon to balance a TKA, whilst keeping the alignment within a safe range

Purpose. Various alignment philosophies for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been described, all striving to achieve excellent long-term implant survival and good functional outcomes. In recent years, in search of higher functionality and patient satisfaction, a shift towards more patient-specific alignment is seen. Robotics is the perfect technology to tailor alignment. The purpose of this study was to describe ‘inverse kinematic alignment’ (iKA) technique, and to compare clinical outcomes of patients that underwent robotic-assisted TKA performed by iKA versus adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA). Methods. The authors analysed the records of a consecutive series of patients that received robotic assisted TKA with iKA (n=40) and with aMA (n=40). Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and satisfaction on a visual analogue scale (VAS) were collected at a follow-up of 12 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds, and uni- and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to determine associations of OKS and satisfaction with 6 variables (age, sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative hip knee ankle (HKA) angle, preoperative OKS, alignment technique). Results. The iKA and aMA techniques yielded comparable outcome scores (p=0.069), with OKS respectively 44.6±3.5 and 42.2±6.3. VAS Satisfaction was better (p=0.012) with iKA (9.2±0.8) compared to aMA (8.5±1.3). The number of patients that achieved OKS and satisfaction PASS thresholds was significantly higher (p=0.049 and p=0.003, respectively) using iKA (98% and 80%) compared to aMA (85% and 48%). Knees with preoperative varus deformity, achieved significantly (p=0.025) better OKS using iKA (45.4±2.0) compared to aMA (41.4±6.8). Multivariable analyses confirmed better OKS (β=3.1; p=0.007) and satisfaction (β=0.73; p=0.005) with iKA. Conclusions. The results of this study suggest that iKA and aMA grant comparable clinical outcomes at 12-months follow-up, though a greater proportion of knees operated by iKA achieved the PASS thresholds for OKS and satisfaction. Notably. in knees with preoperative varus deformity, iKA yielded significantly better OKS and satisfaction than aMA

Inverse Kinematic Alignment (iKA) and Gap Balancing (GB) aim to achieve a balanced TKA via component alignment. However, iKA aims to recreate the native joint line versus resecting the tibia perpendicular to the mechanical axis. This study aims to compare how two alignment methods impact 1) gap balance and laxity throughout flexion and 2) the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK). Two surgeons performed 75 robotic assisted iKA TKA's using a cruciate retaining implant. An anatomic tibial resection restored the native joint line. A digital joint tensioner measured laxity throughout flexion prior to femoral resection. Femoral component position was adjusted using predictive planning to optimize balance. After femoral resection, final joint laxity was collected. Planned GB (pGB) was simulated for all cases posthoc using a neutral tibial resection and adjusting femoral position to optimize balance. Differences in ML balance, laxity, and CPAK were compared between planned iKA (piKA) and pGB. ML balance and laxity were also compared between piKA and final (fiKA). piKA and pGB had similar ML balance and laxity, with mean differences <0.4mm. piKA more closely replicated native MPTA (Native=86.9±2.8°, piKA=87.8±1.8°, pGB=90±0°) and native LDFA (Native=87.5±2.7°, piKA=88.9±3°, pGB=90.8±3.5°). piKA planned for a more native CPAK distribution, with the most common types being II (22.7%), I (20%), III (18.7%), IV (18.7%) and V (18.7%). Most pGB knees were type V (28.4%), VII (37.8%), and III (16.2). fiKA and piKA had similar ML balance and laxity, however fiKA was more variable in midflexion and flexion (p<0.01). Although ML balance and laxity were similar between piKA and pGB, piKA better restored native joint line and CPAK type. The bulk of pGB knees were moved into types V, VII, and III due to the neutral tibial cut. Surgeons should be cognizant of how these differing alignment strategies affect knee phenotype

Trochlear geometry of modern femoral implants is designed for mechanical alignment (MA) technique for TKA. The biomechanical goal is to create a proximalised and more valgus trochlea to better capture the patella and optimize tracking. In contrast, Kinematic alignment (KA) technique for TKA respects the integrity of the soft tissue envelope and therefore aims to restore native articular surfaces, either femoro-tibial or femoro-patellar. Consequently, it is possible that current implant designs are not suitable for restoring patient specific trochlea anatomy when they are implanted using the kinematic technique, this could cause patellar complications, either anterior knee pain, instability or accelerated wear or loosening. The aim of our study is therefore to explore the extent to which native trochlear geometry is restored when the Persona. ®. implant (Zimmer, Warsaw, USA) is kinematically aligned. A retrospective study of a cohort of 15 patients with KA-TKA was performed with the Persona. ®. prosthesis (Zimmer, Warsaw, USA). Preoperative knee MRIs and postoperative knee CTs were segmented to create 3D femoral models. MRI and CT segmentation used Materialise Mimics and Acrobot Modeller software, respectively. Persona. ®. implants were laser scanned to generate 3D implant models. Those implant models have been overlaid on the 3D femoral implant model (generated via segmentation of postoperative CTs) to replicate, in silico, the alignment of the implant on the post-operative bone and to reproduce in the computer models the features of the implant lost due to CT metal artefacts. 3D models generated from post-operative CT and pre-operative MRI were registered to the same coordinate geometry. A custom written planner was used to align the implant, as located on the CT, onto the pre-operative MRI based model. In house software enabled a comparison of trochlea parameters between the native trochlea and the performed prosthetic trochlea. Parameters assessed included 3D trochlear axis and anteroposterior offset from medial facet, central groove, and lateral facet. Sulcus angle at 30% and 40% flexion was also measured. Inter and intra observer measurement variabilities have been assessed. Varus-valgus rotation between the native and prosthetic trochleae was significantly different (p<0.001), with the prosthetic trochlear groove being on average 7.9 degrees more valgus. Medial and lateral facets and trochlear groove were significantly understuffed (3 to 6mm) postoperatively in the proximal two thirds of the trochlear, with greatest understuffing for the lateral facet (p<0.05). The mean medio-lateral translation and internal-external rotation of the groove and the sulcus angle showed no statistical differences, pre and postoperatively. Kinematic alignment of Persona. ®. implants poorly restores native trochlear geometry. Its clinical impact remains to be defined

BACKGROUND. Trochlear geometry of modern femoral implants is designed for the mechanical alignment (MA) technique for Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). The biomechanical goal is to create a proximalised and more valgus trochlea to better capture the patella and optimize tracking. In contrast, Kinematic alignment (KA) technique for TKA respects the integrity of the soft tissue envelope and therefore aims to restore native articular surfaces, either femoro-tibial or femoro-patellar. Consequently, it is possible that current implant designs are not suitable for restoring patient specific trochlea anatomy when they are implanted using the kinematic technique. This could cause patellar complications, either anterior knee pain, instability or accelerated wear or loosening. The aim of our study is therefore to explore the extent to which native trochlear geometry is restored when the Persona. ®. implant (Zimmer, Warsaw, USA) is kinematically aligned. METHODS. A retrospective study of a cohort of 15 patients with KA-TKA was performed with the Persona. ®. prosthesis (Zimmer, Warsaw, USA). Preoperative knee MRIs and postoperative knee CTs were segmented to create 3D femoral models. MRI and CT segmentation used Materialise Mimics® and Acrobot Modeller® software, respectively. Persona. ®. implants were laser-scanned to generate 3D implant models. Those implant models have been overlaid on the 3D femoral implant model (generated via segmentation of postoperative CTs) to replicate, in silico, the alignment of the implant on the post-operative bone and to reproduce in the computer models the features of the implant lost due to CT metal artefacts. 3D models generated from post-operative CT and pre-operative MRI were registered to the same coordinate geometry. A custom written planner was used to align the implant, as located on the CT, onto the pre-operative MRI based model (figure 1). In house software enabled a comparison of trochlea parameters between the native trochlea and the performed prosthetic trochlea (figure 2). Parameters assessed included 3D trochlear axis and anteroposterior offset from medial facet, central groove, and lateral facet. Sulcus angle at 30% and 40% flexion was also measured. Inter and intra observer measurement variabilities have been assessed. RESULTS. Varus-valgus rotation between the native and prosthetic trochleae was significantly different (p<0.001), with the prosthetic trochlear groove being on average 7.9 degrees more valgus. Medial and lateral facets and trochlear groove were significantly understuffed (3 to 6mm) postoperatively in the proximal two thirds of the trochlear, with greatest understuffing for the lateral facet (p<0.05). The mean medio-lateral translation and internal-external rotation of the groove and the sulcus angle showed no statistical differences, pre and postoperatively (figure 3). CONCLUSION. Kinematic alignment of Persona. ®. implants poorly restores native trochlear geometry. The clinical impact of this finding remains to be defined. For figures/tables, please contact authors directly.

BACKGROUND. Conventional TKA surgery attempts to restore patients to a neutral alignment, and devices are designed with this in mind. Neutral alignment may not be natural for many patients, and may cause dissatisfaction [1]. To solve this, kinematical alignment (KA) attempts to restore the native pre-arthritic joint-line of the knee, with the goal of improving knee kinematics and therefore patient's function and satisfaction [1]. Proper prosthetic trochlea alignment is important to prevent patella complications such as instability or loosening. However, available TKA components have been designed for mechanical implantation, and concerns remain relating the orientation of the prosthetic trochlea when implants are kinematically positioned. The goal of this study is to investigate how a currently available femoral component restores the native trochlear geometry of healthy knees when virtually placed in kinematic alignment. METHODS. The healthy knee OAI (Osteoarthritis Initiative) MRI dataset was used. 36 MRI scans of healthy knees were segmented to produce models of the bone and cartilage surfaces of the distal femur. A set of commercially available femoral components was laser scanned. Custom 3D planning software aligned these components with the anatomical models: distal and posterior condyle surfaces of implants were coincident with distal and posterior condyle surfaces of the cartilage; the anterior flange of the implant sat on the anterior cortex; the largest implant that fitted with minimal overhang was used, performing ‘virtual surgery’ on healthy subjects. Software developed in-house fitted circles to the deepest points in the trochlear grooves of the implant and the cartilage. The centre of the cartilage trochlear circle was found and planes, rotated from horizontal (0%, approximately cutting through the proximal trochlea) through to vertical (100%, cutting through the distal trochlea) rotated around this, with the axis of rotation parallel to the flexion facet axis. These planes cut through the trochlea allowing comparison of cartilage and implant surfaces at 1 degree increments - (fig.1). Trochlear groove geometry was quantified with (1) groove radial distance from centre of rotation cylinder (2) medial facet radial distance (3) lateral facet radial distance and (4) sulcus angle, along the length of the trochlea. Data were normalised to the mean trochlear radius. The orientation of the groove was measured in the coronal and axial plane relative to the flexion facet axis. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was measured. RESULTS. In the coronal plane, the implant trochlear groove was oriented a mean of 8.7° more valgus (p<0.001) than the normal trochlea. The lateral facet was understuffed most at the proximal groove between 0–60% by a mean of 5.3 mm (p<0.001). The medial facet was understuffed by a mean of 4.4 mm between 0–60% (p<0.001) - (fig.2). CONCLUSIONS. Despite attempts to design femoral components with a more anatomical trochlea, there is significant understuffing of the trochlea, which could lead to reduced extensor moment of the quadriceps and contribute to patient dissatisfaction

Conventional TKA surgery attempts to restore patients to a neutral alignment, and devices are designed with this in mind. Neutral alignment may not be natural for many patients, and may cause dissatisfaction. To solve this, kinematical alignment (KA) attempts to restore the native pre-arthritic joint-line of the knee, with the goal of improving knee kinematics and therefore patient's function and satisfaction. Proper prosthetic trochlea alignment is important to prevent patella complications such as instability or loosening. However, available TKA components have been designed for mechanical implantation, and concerns remain relating the orientation of the prosthetic trochlea when implants are kinematically positioned. The goal of this study is to investigate how a currently available femoral component restores the native trochlear geometry of healthy knees when virtually placed in kinematic alignment. The healthy knee OAI (Osteoarthritis Initiative) MRI dataset was used. 36 MRI scans of healthy knees were segmented to produce models of the bone and cartilage surfaces of the distal femur. A set of commercially available femoral components was laser scanned. Custom 3D planning software aligned these components with the anatomical models: distal and posterior condyle surfaces of implants were coincident with distal and posterior condyle surfaces of the cartilage; the anterior flange of the implant sat on the anterior cortex; the largest implant that fitted with minimal overhang was used, performing ‘virtual surgery’ on healthy subjects. Software developed in-house fitted circles to the deepest points in the trochlear grooves of the implant and the cartilage. The centre of the cartilage trochlear circle was found and planes, rotated from horizontal (0%, approximately cutting through the proximal trochlea) through to vertical (100%, cutting through the distal trochlea) rotated around this, with the axis of rotation parallel to the flexion facet axis. These planes cut through the trochlea allowing comparison of cartilage and implant surfaces at 1 degree increments. Trochlear groove geometry was quantified with (1) groove radial distance from centre of rotation cylinder (2) medial facet radial distance (3) lateral facet radial distance and (4) sulcus angle, along the length of the trochlea. Data were normalised to the mean trochlear radius. The orientation of the groove was measured in the coronal and axial plane relative to the flexion facet axis. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was measured. In the coronal plane, the implant trochlear groove was oriented a mean of 8.7° more valgus (p<0.001) than the normal trochlea. The lateral facet was understuffed most at the proximal groove between 0–60% by a mean of 5.3 mm (p<0.001). The medial facet was understuffed by a mean of 4.4 mm between 0–60% (p<0.001). Despite attempts to design femoral components with a more anatomical trochlea, there is significant understuffing of the trochlea, which could lead to reduced extensor moment of the quadriceps and contribute to patient dissatisfaction

Background. Mechanical alignment (MA) techniques for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) introduce significant anatomic modifications and secondary ligament imbalances. A restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) protocol was proposed to minimize these issues and improve TKA clinical results. Method. rKA tibial and femoral bone resections were simulated on 1000 knee CT-Scans from a database of patients undergoing TKA. rKA is defined by the following criteria: Independent tibial and femoral cuts within ± 5° of the bone neutral mechanical axis and; a resulting HKA within ±3° of neutral. Medial-lateral (ΔML) and flexion-extension (ΔFE) gap differences were calculated and compared with measured resection MA results. Results. Extension space ML imbalances ≥3mm occurred in 33% of TKA with MA technique versus 8% with rKA, and ≥5mm were present in up to 11% of MA knees versus 1% rKA (p<0.001). Using the MA technique, for the flexion space, higher ML imbalance rates were created by both MA techniques (using TEA or 3°PC) versus rKA (p<0.001). When all the differences between ΔML and ΔFE are considered together: using MA with TEA there were 41% of the knees with <3mm imbalances throughout; using PC this was 55% and using rKA it was 92% (p<0.001). Conclusion. Significantly less ML or FE gap imbalances are created using rKA versus MA for TKA. Using rKA may help the surgeon to preserve native knee ligament balance during TKA and avoid residual instability, whilst keeping the lower limb alignment within a safe range

Tibial bone density may affect implant stability and functional outcomes following total knee replacement (TKR). Our aim was to characterise the bone density profile at the implant-tibia interface following TKR in mechanical versus kinematic alignment. Pre-operative computed tomography scans for 10 patients were obtained. Using surgical planning software, tibial cuts were made for TKR either neutral (mechanical) or 3 degrees varus (kinematic) alignment. Signal intensity, in Hounsfield Units (HU), was measured at 25,600 points throughout an axial slice at the implant-tibia interface and density profiles compared along defined radial axes from the centre of the tibia towards the cortices. From the tibial centre towards the lateral cortex, trabecular bone density for kinematic and mechanical TKR are similar in the inner 50% but differ significantly beyond this (p= 0.012). There were two distinct density peaks, with peak trabecular bone density being higher in kinematic TKR (p<0.001) and peak cortical bone density being higher in mechanical TKR (p<0.01). The difference in peak cortical to peak trabecular signal was 43 HU and 185 HU respectively (p<0.001). On the medial side there was no significant difference in density profile and a linear increase from centre to cortex. In the lateral proximal tibia, peak cortical and peak trabecular bone densities differ between kinematic TKR and mechanical TKR. Laterally, mechanical TKR may be more dependent upon cortical bone for support compared to kinematic TKR, where trabecular bone density is higher. This may have implications for surgical planning and implant design

Background. Defining optimal coronal alignment in Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is a controversial and poorly understood subject. Tibial bone density may affect implant stability and functional outcomes following TKR. Our aim was to compare the bone density profile at the implant-tibia interface following TKR in mechanical versus kinematic alignment. Methods. Pre-operative CT scans for 10 patients undergoing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were obtained. Using surgical planning software, tibial cuts were made for TKR with 7 degrees posterior slope and either neutral (mechanical) or 3 degrees varus (kinematic) alignment. Signal intensity, in Hounsfield Units (HU), was measured at 25,600 points throughout an axial slice at the implant-tibia interface and density profiles compared along defined radial axes from the centre of the tibia towards the cortices (Hotelling's t-squared and paired t-test). Results. From the tibial centre towards the lateral cortex, trabecular bone density for kinematic and mechanical TKR are similar in the inner 50% but differ significantly beyond this (p= 0.012). There were two distinct density peaks, with peak trabecular bone density being higher in kinematic TKR (p<0.001) and peak cortical bone density being higher in mechanical TKR (p<0.01). The difference in peak cortical to peak trabecular signal was 43 HU and 185 HU respectively (p<0.001). On the medial side there was no significant difference in density profile and a linear increase from centre to cortex. Conclusions. In the lateral proximal tibia, there is significantly less difference between peak cortical and peak trabecular bone densities in kinematic TKR compared to mechanical TKR. Laterally, mechanical TKR may be more dependent upon cortical bone for support compared to kinematic TKR, where trabecular bone density is higher. This may have implications for surgical planning and implant design

Objective. Kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is of increasing interest because this method may improve patient satisfaction. However, the biomechanics of kinematically aligned TKA remain largely unknown. Therefore, we analyzed whether the kinematic alignment method cause to increase the contact force on patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints. Methods. A musculoskeletal computer simulation was used to determine the effects of kinematically or mechanically aligned TKA. Patellofemoral and tibiofemoral contact forces were examined for a mechanically aligned model and a kinematically aligned model using finite element analysis. Results. The peak contact stress on the patellofemoral joint in the kinematically aligned model was greater than that in the mechanically aligned model at 30° and 60°. Maximum peak contact stress was found at 30° flexion in the kinematically aligned model (73 MPa) and this was 221% higher than the stress in the mechanically aligned model (33 MPa). Similarly, peak contact stress of 33.0 MPa at 60° flexion occurred in the kinematically aligned model and this was 114% higher than that in the mechanically aligned model (29 MPa). The peak contact stress on the tibiofemoral joint in the kinematically aligned model was greater than that in the mechanically aligned model at 30°, 60° and 90° flexion. Maximum peak contact stress was found at 30° flexion in the kinematically aligned model (22 MPa) and this was 200% higher than the stress in the mechanically aligned model (11 MPa). Conclusions. Kinematically aligned TKA may have increased risks for implant longevity. Therefore, a strict surgical indication, including age and implant design, is needed to achieve excellent longevity after kinematically aligned TKA

In total knee replacement (TKR), neutral mechanical alignment (NMA) is targeted in prosthetic component implantation. A novel implantation approach, referred to as kinematic alignment (KA), has been recently proposed (Eckhoff et al. 2005). This is based on the pre-arthritic lower limb alignment which is reconstructed using suitable image-based techniques, and is claimed to allow better soft-tissue balance (Eckhoff et al. 2005) and restoration of physiological joint function. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) introduced in TKR to execute personalized prosthesis component implantation are used for KA. The aim of this study was to report knee kinematics and electromyography (EMG) for a number lower limb muscles from two TKR patient groups, i.e. operated according to NMA via conventional instrumentation, or according to KA via PSI. 20 patients affected by primary gonarthrosis were implanted with a cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing prosthesis with patella resurfacing (Triathlon® by Stryker®, Kalamazoo, MI-USA). 17 of these patients, i.e. 11 operated targeting NMA (group A) via convention instrumentation and 6 targeting KA (group B) via PSI (ShapeMatch® by Stryker®, Kalamazoo, MI-USA), were assessed clinically using the International Knee Society Scoring (IKSS) System and biomechanically at 6-month follow-up. Knee kinematics during stair-climbing, chair-rising and extension-against-gravity was analysed by means of 3D video-fluoroscopy (CAT® Medical System, Monterotondo, Italy) synchronized with 4-channel EMG analysis (EMG Mate, Cometa®, Milan, Italy) of the main knee ad/abductor and flexor/extensor muscles. Knee joint motion was calculated in terms of flex/extension (FE), ad/abduction (AA), and internal/external rotation (IE), together with axial rotation of condyle contact point line (CLR). Postoperative knee and functional IKSS scores in group A were 78±20 and 80±23, worse than in group B, respectively 91±12 and 90±15. Knee motion patterns were much more consistent over patients in group B than A. In both groups, normal ranges were found for FE, IE and AA, the latter being generally smaller than 3°. Average IE ranges in the three motor tasks were respectively 8.2°±3.2°, 10.1°±3.9° and 7.9°±4.0° in group A, and 6.6°±4.0°, 10.5°±2.5° and 11.0°±3.9° in group B. Relevant CLRs were 8.2°±3.2°, 10.2°±3.7° and 8.8°±5.3° in group A, and 7.3°±3.5°, 12.6°±2.6° and 12.5°±4.2° in group B. EMG analysis revealed prolonged activation of the medial/lateral vasti muscles in group A. Such muscle co-contraction was not generally observed in all patients in group B, this perhaps proving more stability in the knee replaced following the KA approach. These results reveal that KA results in better function than NMA in TKR. Though small differences were observed between groups, the higher data consistency and the less prolonged muscle activations detected using KA support indirectly the claim of a more natural knee soft tissue balance. References

INTRODUCTION. In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effectiveness of the mechanical alignment (MA) within 0°±3° has been recently questioned. A novel implantation approach, i.e. the kinematic alignment (KA), emerged recently, this being based on the pre-arthritic lower-limb alignment. In KA, the trans-cylindrical axis is used as the reference, instead of the trans-epicondylar one, for femoral component alignment. This axis is defined as the line passing through the centres of the posterior femoral condyles modeled as cylinders. Recently, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced in TKA as an alternative to conventional instrumentation. This provides a tool for preoperative implant planning also via KA. Particularly, KA using PSI seems to be more effective in restoring normal joint kinematics and muscle activity. The purpose of this study was to report preliminarily joint kinematic and electromyography results of two patient groups operated via conventional MA or KA, the latter using PSI. PATIENT AND METHODS. Twenty patients recruited for TKA were implanted with Triathlon® prosthesis (Stryker®-Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ-USA). Seventeen patients, eleven operated targeting MA using the convention instrumentation (group A) and six targeting KA (group B) using PSI (Stryker®-Orthopaedics), were assessed at 6 month follow-up clinically via IKSS and biomechanically. Knee kinematics during stair-climbing, chair-rising, and extension-against-gravity were evaluated using three-dimensional mono-planar video-fluoroscopy (CAT® Medical-System, Monterotondo, Italy) synchronised with electromyography (Wave-Wireless, Cometa®, Milan, Italy). Component pose was reconstructed to calculate knee flexion/extension (FE), ad/abduction (AA), internal/external-rotation (IE), together with the rotation of the contact-line (CLR), i.e. line connecting the medial (MCP) and lateral (LCP) tibio-femoral contact points. MCP and LCP antero-posterior translations were calculated and reported in percentage (%) of the tibial base-plate length. RESULTS. Postoperative clinical scores were better in group B. Knee/functional scores were 78±20/80±23 in group A and 91±12/90±15 in group B. AA range was found smaller than 3°, and physiological ranges of FE and IE were found in both groups. From extension to flexion, MCP translations were all anterior of about 13.8±5.6% anterior, 17.0±6.6% posterior and 15.4±6.6.9% posterior in group A, and 13.0±3.4%, 16.6±5.3% and 16.6±5.6% in group B; corresponding values for LCP were all posterior of about 9.5±3.6%, 11.1±4.3% and 8.7±2.6% in group A, and 102±2.1%, 13.7±8.6% and 14.6±9.8% in group B. These resulted in a CLR equal to 8.2°±3.2°, 10.2°±3.7° and 8.8°±5.3° in group A, and 7.3°±3.5°, 12.6°±2.6° and 12.5°±4.2° group B. Much more consistent patterns of motion were observed in group B. A prolonged activation of the vastus medialis and lateralis was observed in group A. DISCUSSION. These preliminary results show that better scores can be expected using PSI via KA. Although not relevant kinematic differences were observed between groups, more consistent patterns were observed in using PSI via KA. Furthermore, the observed less prolonged activation of the knee extensor muscles suggest that a more natural soft tissue balance is experienced in this group. These findings show a good efficacy of KA using PSI in TKA. The clinical/functional analysis of more patients and a longer follow-up are necessary to establish the claimed superiority of the novel approach

Conventional total knee arthroplasty aims to place the joint line perpendicular to the mechanical axis resulting in an overall neutral mechanical alignment. This objective is promulgated despite the fact healthy adult populations are on average in varus with few proximal tibias being neutral to the mechanical axis. The goal of a neutral mechanical axis is based largely on historical studies and the fact that it is easier to make a neutral tibial cut with conventional jigs and the eye. In order to balance the flexion and extension gaps to accommodate a neutral tibial cut, in most patients, asymmetrical distal and posterior femoral cuts are required. The resulting position of the femoral component could be considered to be “mal-rotated” with respect to the patient's soft tissue envelope. Soft tissue releases are often required to “balance” the knee. Planning and execution of the surgery are largely based off 2-dimensional radiographs which grossly oversimplifies the concept of alignment to the coronal plane, largely ignoring what happens to the knee in 3-dimensions through range of motion and 4-dimensions with respect to gait, stair climbing, etc. Subsequently, neutral mechanical for all engenders the “looks good, feels bad” phenomenon seen in many patients that may in part drive the higher dissatisfaction rates seen in knee arthroplasty globally compared to hip arthroplasty.

Additionally, because most tibias are in varus in the native state, placement of the tibial component in a neutral position results in a valgus orientated position during weight bearing post-operatively. Placing the tibial component in a varus, kinematic aligned position negates this deleterious condition and has been linked to improved outcomes in recent studies.

New imaging and surgical techniques allow for the identification of patient specific alignment targets and the ability to more precisely execute the surgical plan with respect to 3-dimensional placement of the components. Long-term outcomes studies as well as more recent studies on “kinematic” positioning suggest that deviation away from a neutral mechanical target is safe with respect to survivorship and provides better function with a more “natural” feeling knee.

INTRODUCTION

In Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), the neutral overall limb alignment (NOLA), i.e. the mechanical alignment of the lower limb within 0°±3°, is targeted for achieving good clinical/functional results. The kinematic overall limb alignment (KOLA), which uses the axis through the centres of the femur posterior condyles modelled as cylinders, represents a novel approach for achieving better soft tissue balance.

Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is nowadays offered as an effective technology in TKA to obtain better lower limb alignments than those via conventional guides (CON). Although relevant results are still inconsistent, the benefits claimed include shorter operative time, reduced surgical instrumentation, and accurate preoperative planning.

The aim of this study was to report the preliminary clinical and radiological results of TKA patients operated via NOLA-PSI and KOLA-PSI. Comparisons between them and with the results obtained via NOLA-CON were performed.

INTRODUCTION

While standard instrumentation tries to reproduce mechanical axes based on mechanical alignment guides, a new “shape matching” system derives its plan from kinematic measurements using pre-operative MRIs. The current study aimed to compare the resultant alignment in a matched pair cadaveric study between the Shape Match and a standard mechanical system.

Background. There are limited previous findings detailed biomechanical properties following implantation with mechanical and kinematic alignment method in robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during walking. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between two groups and gait analysis of kinematic, and kinetic parameters during walking to identify difference between two alignment method in robotic total knee arthroplasty. Methods. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to undergo robotic-assisted TKA using either the mechanical (30 patients) or the kinematic (30 patients) alignment method. Clinical outcomes including varus and valgus laxities, ROM, HSS, KSS and WOMAC scores and radiological outcomes were evaluated. And ten age and gender matched patients of each group underwent gait analysis (Optic gait analysis system composed with 12 camera system and four force plate integrated) at minimum 5 years post-surgery. We evaluated parameters including knee varus moment and knee varus force, and find out the difference between two groups. Results. The mean follow up duration of both group was 8.1 years (mechanical method) and 8.0 years (kinematic method). Clinical outcome between two groups showed no significant difference in ROM, HSS, WOMAC, KSS pain score at last follow up. Varus and valgus laxity assessments showed no significant inter-group difference. We could not find any significant difference in mechanical alignment of the lower limb and perioperative complicatoin. In gait analysis, no significant spatiotemporal, kinematic or kinetic parameter differences including knee varus moment (mechanical=0.33, kinematic=0.16 P0.5) and knee varus force (mechanical=0.34, kinematic=0.37 P0.5) were observed between mechanical and kinematic groups. Conclusions. The results of this study show that mechanical and kinematic alignment method provide comparable clinical and radiological outcomes after robotic total knee arthroplasty in average 8 years follow-up. And no functional difference were found between two knee alignment methods during walking

Background. There are limited previous findings detailed biomechanical properties following implantation with mechanical and kinematic alignment method in robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during walking. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between two groups and gait analysis of kinematic, and kinetic parameters during walking to identify difference between two alignment method in robotic total knee arthroplasty. Methods. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to undergo robotic-assisted TKA using either the mechanical (30 patients) or the kinematic (30 patients) alignment method. Clinical outcomes including varus and valgus laxities, ROM, HSS, KSS and WOMAC scores and radiological outcomes were evaluated. And ten age and gender matched patients of each group underwent gait analysis (Optic gait analysis system composed with 12 camera system and four force plate integrated) at minimum 5 years post-surgery. We evaluated parameters including knee varus moment and knee varus force, and find out the difference between two groups. Results. The mean follow up duration of both groups was 8.1 years (mechanical method) and 8.0 years (kinematic method). Clinical outcome between two groups showed no significant difference in ROM, HSS, WOMAC, KSS pain score at last follow up. Varus and valgus laxity assessments showed no significant inter-group difference. We could not find any significant difference in mechanical alignment of the lower limb and perioperative complicatoin. In gait analysis, no significant spatiotemporal, kinematic or kinetic parameter differences including knee varus moment (mechanical=0.33, kinematic=0.16 P0.5) and knee varus force (mechanical=0.34, kinematic=0.37 P0.5) were observed between mechanical and kinematic groups. Conclusions. The results of this study show that mechanical and kinematic alignment method provide comparable clinical and radiological outcomes after robotic total knee arthroplasty in average 8 years follow-up. And no functional differences were found between two knee alignment methods during walking

The aim of mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty is to align all knees into a fixed neutral position, even though not all knees are the same. As a result, mechanical alignment often alters a patient’s constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity, resulting in soft-tissue imbalance. This annotation provides an overview of how the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification can be used to predict imbalance with mechanical alignment, and then offers practical guidance for bone balancing, minimizing the need for soft-tissue releases.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):525–531.

Aims

An algorithm to determine the constitutional alignment of the lower limb once arthritic deformity has occurred would be of value when undertaking kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to determine if the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) algorithm could estimate the constitutional alignment of the lower limb following development of significant arthritis.

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19.

Aims. Sagittal plane imbalance (SPI), or asymmetry between extension and flexion gaps, is an important issue in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to compare SPI between kinematic alignment (KA), mechanical alignment (MA), and functional alignment (FA) strategies. Methods. In 137 robotic-assisted TKAs, extension and flexion stressed gap laxities and bone resections were measured. The primary outcome was the proportion and magnitude of medial and lateral SPI (gap differential > 2.0 mm) for KA, MA, and FA. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of knees with severe (> 4.0 mm) SPI, and resection thicknesses for each technique, with KA as reference. Results. FA showed significantly lower rates of medial and lateral SPI (2.9% and 2.2%) compared to KA (45.3%; p < 0.001, and 25.5%; p < 0.001) and compared to MA (52.6%; p < 0.001 and 29.9%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in medial and lateral SPI between KA and MA (p = 0.228 and p = 0.417, respectively). FA showed significantly lower rates of severe medial and lateral SPI (0 and 0%) compared to KA (8.0%; p < 0.001 and 7.3%; p = 0.001) and compared to MA (10.2%; p < 0.001 and 4.4%; p = 0.013). There was no difference in severe medial and lateral SPI between KA and MA (p = 0.527 and p = 0.307, respectively). MA resulted in thinner resections than KA in medial extension (mean difference (MD) 1.4 mm, SD 1.9; p < 0.001), medial flexion (MD 1.5 mm, SD 1.8; p < 0.001), and lateral extension (MD 1.1 mm, SD 1.9; p < 0.001). FA resulted in thinner resections than KA in medial extension (MD 1.6 mm, SD 1.4; p < 0.001) and lateral extension (MD 2.0 mm, SD 1.6; p < 0.001), but in thicker medial flexion resections (MD 0.8 mm, SD 1.4; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Mechanical and kinematic alignment (measured resection techniques) result in high rates of SPI. Pre-resection angular and translational adjustments with functional alignment, with typically smaller distal than posterior femoral resection, address this issue. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):681–687

The June 2024 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Do the associations of daily steps with mortality and incident cardiovascular disease differ by sedentary time levels?; Large-scale assessment of ChatGPT in benign and malignant bone tumours imaging report diagnosis and its potential for clinical applications; Long-term effects of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis on physical function: a longitudinal analysis; Effect of intramuscular fat in the thigh muscles on muscle architecture and physical performance in the middle-aged females with knee osteoarthritis; Preoperative package of care for osteoarthritis an opportunity not to be missed?; Superiority of kinematic alignment over mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty during medium- to long-term follow-up: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

The April 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Does bariatric surgery reduce complications after total knee arthroplasty?; Mid-flexion stability in total knee arthroplasties implanted with kinematic alignment: posterior-stabilized versus medial-stabilized implants; Inflammatory response in robotic-arm-assisted versus conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty; Journey II bicruciate stabilized (JII-BCS) and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty: the CAPAbility, blinded, randomized controlled trial; Lifetime risk of revision and patient factors; Platelet-rich plasma use for hip and knee osteoarthritis in the USA; Where have the knee revisions gone?; Tibial component rotation in total knee arthroplasty: CT-based study of 1,351 tibiae

Introduction and Objective. Kinematic Alignment (KA) is a surgical technique that restores the native knee alignment following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). The association of this technique with a medial pivot implant design (MP) attempts to reestablish the physiological kinematics of the knee. Aim of this study is to analyze the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing MP-TKA with kinematic alignment, and to assess the effect of the limb alignment and the orientation of the tibial component on the clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 63 patients who underwent kinematic aligned medial pivot TKA from September 2018 to January 2020. Patient-Related Outcomes (PROMs) and radiological measures were collected at baseline, 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Results. We demonstrated a significant improvement in the clinical and functional outcomes starting from 3 months after surgery. This finding was also confirmed at the longest follow-up. The clinical improvement was independent from the limb alignment and from the orientation of the tibial component. The radiological analysis showed that the patient's native limb alignment was restored, and that the joint line orientation maintained the parallelism to the floor when standing. This latter result has a particular relevance, as it may positively influence the outcomes, reducing the risk of wear and mobilization of the implant. Conclusions. The association of kinematic alignment and a medial pivot TKA implant allows for a fast recovery, good clinical and functional outcomes, independently from the final limb alignment and the tibial component orientation

The February 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine-learning models: are all complications predictable?; Positive cultures can be safely ignored in revision arthroplasty patients that do not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria; Spinal versus general anaesthesia in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasty; Preoperative pain and early arthritis are associated with poor outcomes in total knee arthroplasty; Risk factors for infection and revision surgery following patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon repairs; Supervised versus unsupervised rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty; Kinematic alignment has similar outcomes to mechanical alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Lifetime risk of revision after knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Risk factors for knee osteoarthritis after traumatic knee injury

The June 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Cementless total knee arthroplasty is associated with early aseptic loosening in a large national database; Is cementless total knee arthroplasty safe in females aged over 75 years?; Could novel radiological findings help identify aseptic tibial loosening?; The Attune cementless versus LCS arthroplasty at introduction; Return to work following total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty; Mid-flexion instability in kinematic alignment better with posterior-stabilized and medial-stabilized implants?; Patellar resurfacing does not improve outcomes in modern knees

Abstract. Introduction. Controversy exists regarding the optimal tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Many believe navigation or robotics are required to set kinematic alignments or to ensure they remain within ‘safe’ limits e.g. maximum 5° varus on the tibia. Given most navigation or robotic systems require the surgeon to identify the ankle malleoli, this study aimed to radiographically analyse standardly used intra-operative landmarks around the ankle, assessing their value in achieving kinematic alignment / setting safety boundaries. Materials and Methods. Long leg alignment radiographs were analysed independently by two orthopaedic surgeons at two time points, eight weeks apart. Angles were measured between the long axis of the tibia (TB) and: 1. lateral malleolus (TB-LM), 2. lateral border of the talus (TB-LT) and 3. medial aspect of the medial malleolus (TB-MM). Intra- and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed. Results. One hundred and sixty-seven radiographs in 119 patients were analysed; mean age 71.6 years. Mean angles (95% CI) were: TB-LM 4.8° (4.7°- 4.8°), TB-LT 2.6° (2.5° - 2.6°) and TB-MM 4.2° (4.1° - 4.2°). Interrater reliability was good for TB-LM (ICC = 0.72) and TB-MM (ICC=0.67), and fair for TB-LT (ICC= 0.50). Intra-rater reliability was excellent for all measures (ICC >0.85). Conclusion. There are consistent angles between tibial alignment and ankle landmarks. Using these landmarks, with standard instrumentation and alignment checks, allows surgeons to define safe limits, e.g. maximum 4.8° tibial varus if aligned to the tip of the lateral malleolus or set a 2.5° varus cut, without the need for added technology

Limb alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) influences periarticular soft-tissue tension, biomechanics through knee flexion, and implant survival. Despite this, there is no uniform consensus on the optimal alignment technique for TKA. Neutral mechanical alignment facilitates knee flexion and symmetrical component wear but forces the limb into an unnatural position that alters native knee kinematics through the arc of knee flexion. Kinematic alignment aims to restore native limb alignment, but the safe ranges with this technique remain uncertain and the effects of this alignment technique on component survivorship remain unknown. Anatomical alignment aims to restore predisease limb alignment and knee geometry, but existing studies using this technique are based on cadaveric specimens or clinical trials with limited follow-up times. Functional alignment aims to restore the native plane and obliquity of the joint by manipulating implant positioning while limiting soft tissue releases, but the results of high-quality studies with long-term outcomes are still awaited. The drawbacks of existing studies on alignment include the use of surgical techniques with limited accuracy and reproducibility of achieving the planned alignment, poor correlation of intraoperative data to long-term functional outcomes and implant survivorship, and a paucity of studies on the safe ranges of limb alignment. Further studies on alignment in TKA should use surgical adjuncts (e.g. robotic technology) to help execute the planned alignment with improved accuracy, include intraoperative assessments of knee biomechanics and periarticular soft-tissue tension, and correlate alignment to long-term functional outcomes and survivorship

Aims. A comprehensive classification for coronal lower limb alignment with predictive capabilities for knee balance would be beneficial in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This paper describes the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification and examines its utility in preoperative soft tissue balance prediction, comparing kinematic alignment (KA) to mechanical alignment (MA). Methods. A radiological analysis of 500 healthy and 500 osteoarthritic (OA) knees was used to assess the applicability of the CPAK classification. CPAK comprises nine phenotypes based on the arithmetic HKA (aHKA) that estimates constitutional limb alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). Intraoperative balance was compared within each phenotype in a cohort of 138 computer-assisted TKAs randomized to KA or MA. Primary outcomes included descriptive analyses of healthy and OA groups per CPAK type, and comparison of balance at 10° of flexion within each type. Secondary outcomes assessed balance at 45° and 90° and bone recuts required to achieve final knee balance within each CPAK type. Results. There was similar frequency distribution between healthy and arthritic groups across all CPAK types. The most common categories were Type II (39.2% healthy vs 32.2% OA), Type I (26.4% healthy vs 19.4% OA) and Type V (15.4% healthy vs 14.6% OA). CPAK Types VII, VIII, and IX were rare in both populations. Across all CPAK types, a greater proportion of KA TKAs achieved optimal balance compared to MA. This effect was largest, and statistically significant, in CPAK Types I (100% KA vs 15% MA; p < 0.001), Type II (78% KA vs 46% MA; p = 0.018). and Type IV (89% KA vs 0% MA; p < 0.001). Conclusion. CPAK is a pragmatic, comprehensive classification for coronal knee alignment, based on constitutional alignment and JLO, that can be used in healthy and arthritic knees. CPAK identifies which knee phenotypes may benefit most from KA when optimization of soft tissue balance is prioritized. Further, it will allow for consistency of reporting in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):329–337

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty is a well-documented phenomenon. Although many factors have been implicated, including modifiable and nonmodifiable patient factors, emphasis over the past decade has been on implant alignment and stability as both a cause of, and a solution to, this problem. Several alignment targets have evolved with a proliferation of techniques following the introduction of computer and robotic-assisted surgery. Mechanical alignment targets may achieve mechanically-sound alignment while ignoring the soft tissue envelope; kinematic alignment respects the soft tissue envelope while ignoring the mechanical environment. Functional alignment is proposed as a hybrid technique to allow mechanically-sound, soft tissue-friendly alignment targets to be identified and achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):276–279

Background. Recent studies reported that the kinematic alignment of an implant is more physiological than the traditional methods, and therefore results in better clinical outcomes. They found that for kinematic alignment of the implant, the femoral component should be positioned valgus 2 degrees and tibial component in varus 2 degrees without femoral rotation. Other study also claimed that kinematically aligned TKA does not cause any significant failure; rather, it restores the function of the knee. Therefore kinematic alignment was raised for further patient's functional satisfaction. Purpose. The purpose of our study is to certify correlation between parameters of implant position and postoperative clinical outcomes after kinematic alignment of TKA. Materials and methods. We obtained 32 patients with primary osteoarthritis who need surgical treatment. During operation we targeted tibial varus of 2 degree and femoral valgus of 2 degree on coronal plane, and neutral rotation on axial plane of the knee. ROM (range of motion) was checked at final visit to office with radiology. Average follow up was 44.5 months (range 36–60). We used the Pearson correlation coefficient to determine any relationship between coronal deformity and PCA or TRA for the entire population and individually for each gender. Clinical outcomes including post op active knee ROM, TRA (the angle between the perpendicular line to the TEA and Akagi's line), varus and valgus angle of the knee were also analyzed. Results. Clinical outcomes including post op knee scoring and ROM was improved. There were negative linear relationships between the femoral component rotation (internal and external) and active and passive range of motion after kinematic alignment of TKA. And we also found a negative linear relationship between the tibial rotation of the component and active and passive range of motion. And we also found a negative linear relationship between the gamma angle and active and passive range of motion. The gamma angle is most powerful predictive parameter of postoperative range of motion of the knee. Conclusion. The alignment of the component set into the kinematic alignment of the knee: internal rotation of femur implant with good gamma angle in sagittal plane will assure better clinical outcome; ROM and scores. Coronal alignments of component (valgus or varus) were weak predictive parameters

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 anatomicaloptions 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” (Figure 1) and “osteoarthritic knees” (Figure 2) 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. For figures/tables, please contact authors directly.

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

Mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), although considered the gold standard, reportedly has up to 25% of patients expressing post-operative dissatisfaction. Biomechanical outcomes following kinematic alignment (KA) in TKA, developed to restore native joint alignment, remain unclear. Without a clear consensus for the optimal alignment strategy during TKA, the purpose of this study was to conduct a paired biomechanical comparison of MA and KA in TKA by experimentally quantifying joint laxity and medial collateral ligament (MCL) strain. 14 bilateral native fresh-frozen cadaveric lower limbs underwent medially-stabilised TKA (GMK Sphere, Medacta, Switzerland) using computed CT-based subject-specific guides, with KA and MA performed on left and right legs, respectively. Each specimen was subjected to sensor-controlled mediolateral laxity tests. A handheld force sensor (Mark-10, USA) was used to generate an abduction-adduction moment of 10Nm at the knee at fixed flexion angles (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°). A digital image correlation system was used to compute the strain on the superficial medial collateral ligament. A six-camera optical motion capture system (Vicon MX+, UK) was used to acquire kinematics using a pre-defined CT-based anatomical coordinate system. A linear mixed model and Tukey's posthoc test were performed to compare native, KA and MA conditions (p<0.05). Unlike MA, medial joint laxity in KA was similar to the native condition; however, no significant difference was found at any flexion angle (p>0.08). Likewise, KA was comparable with the native condition for lateral joint laxity, except at 30°, and no statistical difference was observed. Although joint laxity in MA seemed lower than the native condition, this difference was significant only for 30° flexion (p=0.01). Both KA and MA exhibited smaller MCL strain at 0° and 30°; however, all conditions were similar at 60° and 90°. Medial and lateral joint laxity seemed to have been restored better following KA than MA; however, KA did not outperform MA in MCL strain, especially after mid-flexion. Although this study provides only preliminary indications regarding the optimal alignment strategy to restore native kinematics following TKA, further research in postoperative joint biomechanics for load bearing conditions is warranted

Aims. It is unknown whether kinematic alignment (KA) objectively improves knee balance in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), despite this being the biomechanical rationale for its use. This study aimed to determine whether restoring the constitutional alignment using a restrictive KA protocol resulted in better quantitative knee balance than mechanical alignment (MA). Methods. We conducted a randomized superiority trial comparing patients undergoing TKA assigned to KA within a restrictive safe zone or MA. Optimal knee balance was defined as an intercompartmental pressure difference (ICPD) of 15 psi or less using a pressure sensor. The primary endpoint was the mean intraoperative ICPD at 10° of flexion prior to knee balancing. Secondary outcomes included balance at 45° and 90°, requirements for balancing procedures, and presence of tibiofemoral lift-off. Results. A total of 63 patients (70 knees) were randomized to KA and 62 patients (68 knees) to MA. Mean ICPD at 10° flexion in the KA group was 11.7 psi (SD 13.1) compared with 32.0 psi in the MA group (SD 28.9), with a mean difference in ICPD between KA and MA of 20.3 psi (p < 0.001). Mean ICPD in the KA group was significantly lower than in the MA group at 45° and 90°, respectively (25.2 psi MA vs 14.8 psi KA, p = 0.004; 19.1 psi MA vs 11.7 psi KA, p < 0.002, respectively). Overall, participants in the KA group were more likely to achieve optimal knee balance (80% vs 35%; p < 0.001). Bone recuts to achieve knee balance were more likely to be required in the MA group (49% vs 9%; p < 0.001). More participants in the MA group had tibiofemoral lift-off (43% vs 13%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. This study provides persuasive evidence that restoring the constitutional alignment with KA in TKA results in a statistically significant improvement in quantitative knee balance, and further supports this technique as a viable alternative to MA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(1):117–124

Abstract. Introduction. OtisMed Shape Match ® patient specific implant cutting jigs were designed to place TKA in kinematic alignment (KA) rather than traditional mechanical alignment (MA). This product was withdrawn from the market in 2013. It has been hypothesised that KA might lead to early implant failure. Initial evidence has not supported this. We present 10 year outcome data for the largest single centre cohort to date. Methodology. Between 2010 and 2013, 127 Shape Match® TKAs were implanted in 119 individuals. Retrospective review of long leg post-operative radiographs assessed femoral mechanical anatomical angle (FMA), tibial mechanical angle (TMA), hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), posterior tibial slope (PTS) and femoral component flexion. Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), revision and further surgery rates were reviewed. Results. 4 (3.1%) patients underwent revision for instability, recurrent haemarthrosis, stiffness and infection respectively. In this subgroup, PTS ranged from 9–25° (SD 7.5°). PTS range for non-revision subgroup was 1–23° (SD 4.6). 1 patient with a PTS of 21° had failure of quadriceps tendon, but was not revised. Mean OKS at 1year = 38.1 (SD 1.08), 2 years = 39.3 (SD 1.08), 5 years = 40.8 (SD 4.11). PTS had the largest impact on OKS, with <10° slope conferring a higher OKS. Conclusions. At 10 year follow up, this cohort did identify several cases where excessive PTS was evident. This may have led to revision surgery and contributed post-operative complications. PTS, unlike other alignment measures, impacted OKS results. Overall revision rate and OKS were consistent with registry and other published data

Modifying Knee anatomy during mechanical Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) may impact ligament balance, patellar tracking and quadriceps function. Although well fixed, patients may report high levels (20%) of dissatisfaction. One theory is that putting the knee in neutral mechanical alignment may be responsible for these unsatisfactory results. Kinematic TKA has gained interest in recent years; it aims to resurface the knee joint and preservation of natural femoral flexion axis about which the tibia and patella articulate, recreating the native knee without the need for soft tissue relaease. That's being said, it remains the question of whether all patients are suitable for kinematic alignment. Some patients' anatomy may be inherently biomechanically inferior and recreating native anatomy in these patients may result in early implant failure. The senior author (PAV) has been performing Kinematic TKA since 2011, and has developed an algorithm in order to better predict which patient may benefit from this technique. Lower limb CT scans from 4884 consecutive patients scheduled for TKA arthroplasty were analysed. These exams were performed for patient-specific instrumentation production (My Knee®, Medacta, Switzerland). Multiple anatomical landmarks used to create accurate CT-based preoperative planning and determine the mechanical axis of bone for the femur and tibia and overall Hip-knee-Ankle (HKA). We wanted to test the safe range for kinematic TKA for the planned distal resection of the femur and tibia. Safe range algorithm was defined as the combination of the following criteria: – Independent tibial and femoral cuts within ± 5° of the bone neutral mechanical axis and HKA within ± 3°. The purpose of this study is to verify the applicability of the proposed safe range algorithm on a large sample of individual scheduled for TKA. The preoperative tibial mechanical angle average 2.9 degrees in varus, femoral mechanical angle averaged 2.7 degrees in valgus and overall HKA averaged of 0.1 in varus. There were 2475 (51%) knees out of 4884, with femur and tibia mechanical axis within ±5° and HKA within ±3° without need for bony corrections. After applying the algorithm, a total of 4062 cases (83%) were successfully been evaluated using the proposed protocol to reach a safe range of HKA ±3° with minimal correction. The remaining 822 cases (17%) could not be managed by the proposed algorithm because of their unusual anatomies and were dealt with individually. In this study, we tested a proposed algorithm to perform kinematic alignment TKA avoiding preservation/restoration of some extreme anatomies that might not be suitable for TKA long-term survivorship. A total of 4062 cases (83%) were successfully eligible for our proposed safe range algorithm for kinematic TKA. In conclusion, kinematically aligned TKA may be a promising option to improve normal knee function restoration and patient satisfaction. Until we have valuable data confirming the compatibility of all patients' pre arthritic anatomies with TKA long-term survivorship, we believe that kinematically alignment should be performed within some limits. Further studies with Radiostereometry or longer follow up might help determine if all patients' anatomies are suitable for Kinematic TKA

Aims. The results of kinematic total knee arthroplasty (KTKA) have been reported in terms of limb and component alignment parameters but not in terms of gap laxities and differentials. In kinematic alignment (KA), balance should reflect the asymmetrical balance of the normal knee, not the classic rectangular flexion and extension gaps sought with gap-balanced mechanical axis total knee arthroplasty (MATKA). This paper aims to address the following questions: 1) what factors determine coronal joint congruence as measured on standing radiographs?; 2) is flexion gap asymmetry produced with KA?; 3) does lateral flexion gap laxity affect outcomes?; 4) is lateral flexion gap laxity associated with lateral extension gap laxity?; and 5) can consistent ligament balance be produced without releases?. Patients and Methods. A total of 192 KTKAs completed by a single surgeon using a computer-assisted technique were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (2 to 5). There were 116 male patients (60%) and 76 female patients (40%) with a mean age of 65 years (48 to 88). Outcome measures included intraoperative gap laxity measurements and component positions, as well as joint angles from postoperative three-foot standing radiographs. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed in terms of alignment and balance: EuroQol (EQ)-5D visual analogue scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), KOOS Joint Replacement (JR), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Results. Postoperative limb alignment did not affect outcomes. The standing hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was the sole positive predictor of the joint line convergence angle (JLCA) (p < 0.001). Increasing lateral flexion gap laxity was consistently associated with better outcomes. Lateral flexion gap laxity did not correlate with HKA angle, the JLCA, or lateral extension gap laxity. Minor releases were required in one third of cases. Conclusion. The standing HKA angle is the primary determinant of the JLCA in KTKA. A rectangular flexion gap is produced in only 11% of cases. Lateral flexion gap laxity is consistently associated with better outcomes and does not affect balance in extension. Minor releases are sometimes required as well, particularly in limbs with larger preoperative deformities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:331–339