The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) is a recent method for classifying knees using the hip-knee-ankle angle and joint line obliquity to assist surgeons in selection of an optimal alignment philosophy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)1. It is unclear, however, how CPAK classification impacts pre-operative joint balance. Our objective was to characterise joint balance differences between CPAK categories. A retrospective review of TKA's using the OMNIBotics platform and BalanceBot (Corin, UK) using a tibia first workflow was performed. Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were landmarked intra-operatively and corrected for wear. Joint gaps were measured under a load of 70–90N after the tibial resection. Resection thicknesses were validated to recreate the pre-tibial resection joint balance. Knees were subdivided into 9 categories as described by MacDessi et al.1 Differences in balance at 10°, 40° and 90° were determined using a one-way 2-tailed ANOVA test with a critical p-value of 0.05. 1124 knees satisfied inclusion criteria. The highest proportion of knees (60.7%) are CPAK I with a varus aHKA and Distal Apex JLO, 79.8% report a Distal Apex JLO and 69.3% report a varus aHKA. Greater medial gaps are observed in varus (I, IV, VII) compared to neutral (II, V, VIII) and valgus knees (III, VI, IX) (p<0.05 in all cases) as well as in the Distal Apex (I, II, III) compared to Neutral groups (IV, V, VI) (p<0.05 in all cases). Comparisons could not be made with the Proximal Apex groups due to low frequency (≤2.5%). Significant differences in joint balance were observed between and within CPAK groups. Although both hip-knee-ankle angle and joint line orientation are associated with joint balance, boney anatomy alone is not sufficient to fully characterize the knee

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