Introduction: A successful total knee replacement (TKR) relies upon effective soft tissue management. Historically, soft tissue balancing has been difficult to assess and quantify intraoperatively. Computer navigation permits us to accurately assess kinematics during surgery. In a previous study we performed a series of varus and valgus stress measurements in extension to devise an algorithm for soft tissue management. In this study we evaluate the effectiveness of this algorithm.

Methods: This prospective study used the Orthopilot® CT-free navigation system during TKR for 57 patients with end-stage arthritis. We collected intraoperative kinematic data for 42 varus knees. Pre- and post-operatively, a varus and valgus stress was applied at maximum extension, recording the mechanical femorotibial (MFT) angle. There were no patellar resurfacings. The following medial releases were performed based upon the kinematics and the algorithm below:

No release–MFT angle not less than −12° with varus stress, greater than 2° with valgus stress, and/or if extension deficit was not greater than 5°.

Results: Pre-operatively, the mean MFT angle was −9.6°varus (−3° to −22°) with varus stress and −0.8°varus (4° to −11°) with valgus stress. Post-operatively, the mean MFT angle was −3.5° varus (0° to −5°) with varus stress, and 2.1° valgus (4° to −1°) with valgus stress.

Using regressional analysis, there was a strong linear correlation between both varus (r=0.871, p< 0.0001) and valgus (r=0.894, p< 0.0001) stresses and the MFT angle.

Post-operatively, the mean MFT angle was maintained within a narrow range (0° to −5° with varus stress, 4° to −1° with valgus stress), with no outliers. There were no extension deficits.

Conclusions: Using computer navigation a quantifiable soft tissue management system was introduced. We evaluated this algorithm, and obtained reproducible results within a narrow range and no outliers. This algorithm may provide an effective soft tissue management plan in TKR.

Introduction: Computer navigation systems allow real time evaluation of knee behaviour intraoperatively. Measurements made by navigation reflect soft tissue balance throughout surgery. We studied three different populations of patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) with a CT-free navigation system where the goal was to achieve normal alignment. We compared the initial pathological kinematics in each group with the resultant kinematics after correction.

Method: The Orthopilot® was used during TKR for three groups of patients A (n=71), B(n=60) and C(n=43) all with endstage osteoarthritis. Patients in groups A and B had TKR performed by surgeon 1, and group C by surgeon 2.

Results: Pre-operatively, the mean mechanical femoral axis and the mean mechanical femoro-tibial (MFT) angle were calculated. The mean mechanical femoral axis for group A was −0.5° varus (−6° to 9°), group B was −0.68° varus(−6° to 6°), and for group C was 2.67° valgus (−12° to 10°). P< 0.0001, using Kruskal-Wallis test. Pre-operatively, the mean MFT angle for group A was −3.75° varus(−15° to 17°), group B was −2.98° varus(−17° to 13°), and for group C was 0.16° valgus(−17° to 25°). P=0.003 using Kruskal-Wallis test. These results show that the initial preoperative kinematics are different for the three different populations.

Post-operatively we measured the mean MFT angle in groups A, B and C. In group A, the mean MFT angle was −0.38° varus (−4° to 2°), group B was −0.41° varus(−5° to 2°), and group C was −0.02° varus(−3° to 5°). P=0.7 using the Kruskal-Wallis test. These results show that the post-operative kinematics are similar between the three different populations.

Discussion: Populations A and B preoperatively exhibited a mean varus MFT angle (−0.5° and −0.68° respectively), compared with a mean valgus MFT angle for group C(2.67°), which were statistically significantly different. Although different surgeons operated on the 3 groups (surgeon 1 operated on groups A and B, and surgeon 2 operated on group C), post-operative kinematics were within a narrow range (−0.02° to −0.41°) and not statistically different (p=0.7).

Conclusion: The Orthopilot® results showed that these populations had different initial pathological kinematics. Despite this, and using different operators we obtained similar post-op results within a narrow range. Computer navigation produces reliable, reproducible results independent of population or operator variables.

Introduction: Accurate soft tissue balancing is an essential part of total knee replacement (TKR), but has been difficult to quantify using traditional instrumentation methods. Computer navigation systems allow us to accurately assess intra-operative kinematics, which are affected by soft tissue management. The aims of this study were to evaluate the role of varus and valgus stress measurements and subsequently devise an algorithm for soft tissue management during TKR.

Methods: We used the Orthopilot® CT-free navigation system during TKR for patients with primary end-stage arthritis. This was a prospective study with 71 patients collecting intra-operative kinematic data. 57 knees were varus, 13 valgus, and 1 well aligned.

Pre- and post-operatively, the surgeon applied a varus and valgus stress at maximum extension, recording the mechanical femorotibial (MFT) angle. There were no patellar resurfacings. We compared the kinematics of each varus knee. Based upon the kinematics and the surgeon’s experience the following medial releases were performed as usual and divided into three categories:

No release (limited medial approach).

Results: Pre-operatively, the mean MFT angle was −9.6° (−3° to −22°) with varus stress and −0.8° (4° to −11°) with valgus stress. Post-operatively, the mean MFT angle was −3.7° (−1° to −7°) with varus stress, and 1.1° (4° to −3°) with valgus stress. Using regressional analysis, there was a strong linear correlation between both varus (r=0.742, p< 0.0001) and valgus (r=0.771, p< 0.0001) stresses and the MFT angle.

With the following medial releases, these kinematics were found:

No release – MFT angle not less than −12° with varus stress, greater than 2° with valgus stress, and/or if extension deficit was not greater than 5°.

The results show that post-operatively, the mean MFT angle is maintained within a narrow range (−1° to −7° with varus stress, 4° to −3° with valgus stress). 5/57(9%) patients had a mean MFT angle of 6.4°(0° to 7°) with valgus stress, and were considered to have been over-corrected. There were no extension deficits.

Conclusions: Navigation allows us to quantify soft tissue balancing based upon the initial kinematics with varus and valgus stress testing. From these measurements, an algorithm was developed, which showed that an appropriate release was made in 52/57 (91%) patients, but this may require some adjustment to reduce the number of outlying results.