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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Metal Ion Levels Not Useful in Failed M-O-M Hips: Systematic Review; Revision of Failed M-O-M THA at a Tertiary Center; Trunnionosis in Metal-on-Poly THA?; Do Ceramic Heads Eliminate Trunnionosis?; Iliopsoas Impingement After 10 THA; Pain in Young, Active Patients Following THA; Pre-operative Injections Increase Peri-prosthetic THA Infection; Debridement and Implant Retention in THA Infection; THA after Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion; Lumbar Back Surgery Prior to THA Associated with Worse Outcomes; Raising the Joint Line Causes Mid-Flexion Instability in TKA; No Improvement in Outcomes with Kinematic Alignment in TKA; Botox For TKA Flexion Contracture; Intra-operative Synovitis Predicts Worse Outcomes After TKA for OA; When is it Safe for Patients to Drive After Right TKA?; Alpha-Defensin for Peri-prosthetic Joint Infection; Medial Tibia Overhang and Pain Score After TKA

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.

There is enough evidence to show that navigation improves precision of component placement and consistent and accurate restoration of limb alignment, allowing the surgeon to achieve the desired neutral or kinematic alignment. Computer-assisted TKA provides excellent information regarding gap equality and symmetry throughout the knee range of motion. Accurate soft-tissue balancing is facilitated by CAS. It allows precise, quantitative soft tissue release for deformities, especially in knees with severe flexion contractures and severe rigid varus and valgus deformities. It allows accurate restoration of joint line, and posterior femoral offset. Knee arthritis with complex extra-articular deformities and in-situ hardware can be tackled appropriately using computer navigation where conventional techniques may be inadequate. It also allows intra-articular correction for extra-articular deformities due to malunions and facilitates extra-articular correction in cases with severe extra-articular tibial deformities. In obese patients, where the alignment of the limb is difficult to assess, computer navigation improves accuracy and reduces the number of outliers. The ability to quantify the precise amount of bone cuts and soft tissue releases needed to equalise gaps and restore alignment, reduced blood loss, and reduced incidence of systemic emboli improves the safety of the procedure and hastens functional recovery of the patient. Recent evidence shows that the rate of revision especially in younger patients is reduced with navigation