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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Restoring the overall mechanical alignment to neutral has been the gold standard since the 1970s and remains the current standard of knee arthroplasty today. Recently, there has been renewed interest in alternative alignment goals that place implants in a more “physiologic” position with the hope of improving clinical outcomes. Anywhere from 10 – 20% of patients are dissatisfied after knee replacement surgery and while the cause is multifactorial, some believe that it is related to changing native alignment and an oblique joint line (the concept of constitutional varus) to a single target of mechanical neutral alignment. In addition, recent studies have challenged the long held belief that total knee placed outside the classic “safe zone” of +/− 3 degrees increases the risk of mechanical failure which theoretically supports investigating alternative, more patient specific, alignment targets. From a biomechanical, implant retrieval, and clinical outcomes perspective, mechanical alignment should remain the gold standard for TKA. Varus tibias regardless of overall alignment pattern show increased polyethylene wear and varus loading increases the risk of posteromedial collapse. While recently questioned, the evidence states that alignment does matter. When you combine contemporary knee designs placed in varus with an overweight population (which is the majority of TKA patients) the failure rate increases exponentially when compared to neutral alignment. A recent meta-analysis on mechanical alignment and survivorship clearly demonstrated reduced survivorship for varus-aligned total knees. The only way to justify the biomechanical risks associated with placing components in an alternative alignment target is a significant clinical outcome benefit but the evidence is lacking. A randomised control trial comparing mechanical alignment (MA) and kinematic alignment (KA) found a significant improvement in clinical outcomes and knee function in KA patients at 2 year follow-up. In contrast, Young et al. recently published a randomised control trial comparing PSI KA and computer assisted mechanical TKA and found no difference in any clinical outcome measure. Why were the clinical outcomes scores in the MA patients so different: One potential explanation is that different surgical techniques were used. In the Dosset study, the femur was cut at 5 degrees valgus in all patients and femoral component rotation was always set at 3 degrees externally rotated to the posterior condylar axis. We know from several studies that this method leads to inaccuracies in both coronal plane and axial plane in some patients. Young et al. used computer assisted navigation to align his distal femur cut with the mechanical axis and adjusted femoral component rotation to the transepicondylar axis. The results suggest that a well performed mechanical aligned total knee replacement has excellent clinical performance equal to that of kinematic alignment without any of the long term risks of implant failure. Most contemporary TKA implants are designed to be loaded perpendicular to the polyethylene surface and placing them in shear without extensive biomechanical testing to support this alignment target may put patients at long term risk for an unproven benefit. Have we not learned our lesson?