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

The cause of dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains elusive. Much attention has been focused on static mechanical alignment as a basis for surgical success and optimising outcomes. More recently, research on both normal and osteoarthritic knees, as well as kinematically aligned TKAs, has suggested that other specific and dynamic factors may be more important than a generic target of 0 ± 3º of a neutral axis. Consideration of these other variables is necessary to understand ideal targets and move beyond generic results. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):81–3

There has been a renewed interest in the importance of achievement of a neutral, mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this presentation is to argue the merits behind questioning a neutral, mechanical alignment following TKA, and why the concepts of “constitutional varus” and “kinematic alignment” deserve further investigation. The impact of alignment on outcomes following TKA has been questioned for a number of reasons. First, recent investigations have highlighted that approximately 20% of patients are not satisfied with their outcome following TKA. Second, recent studies have shown that achievement of a mechanical axis within 3 degrees of neutral does not necessarily improve survivorship or clinical outcomes. Third, as patients requiring TKA have a wide array of morphologies and alignment, targeting the exact same alignment for each patient has been questioned. Lastly, despite the advent of new implant designs with proposed benefits of improved kinematics, few studies have shown a clinical improvement with their use. The concept of “constitutional varus” has suggested that restoration of a neutral, mechanical alignment may not be desirable and unnatural as 32% of men and 17% of women have a natural mechanical alignment of greater than 3 degrees at skeletal maturity. The “kinematic alignment” technique focuses on restoration of the joint line of the distal femur, posterior femur, and tibia to those of the non-arthritic, native knee. The kinematic alignment technique has shown promising results. However, while these concepts have merit, questions still remain regarding the optimal alignment target for each, individual patient

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?

Introduction. Functional outcomes of mechanically aligned (MA) total knee arthroplasty have plateaued. The aim of this study is to find an alternative technique for implant positioning that improves functional outcomes of TKA. Methods. We prospectively randomized 100 consecutive patients undergoing TKA into two groups: in the group A an intramedullary femoral guide and an extramedullary tibial guide were used with aim to obtain a neutral traditional mechanical alignment; in the group B an extramedullary femoral guide set on distal femoral condyles and an extramedullary tibial guide neutrally aligned were used to obtain an adaptation of the conventional MA technique. Patients were followed-up clinically with the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) questionnaires pre-operatively and then at 1 year post-operatively. Mechanical alignment was calculated on standing weight bearing Xray pre- and post-operatively. T-test was used to compare the results between groups. Results. Both groups showed an improvement of clinical scores. At 1 year of follow-up OKS and SF-12 were significantly higher in group B: 47,6 ±0.75 and 46.5 ±0.76 respectively; VAS was similar in both groups. Values of mechanical alignment changed from 6.45 ±8.45 to 0.25 ±0.91 for group A and from 6.8 ±7.94 to 2.5 ±4.7 for group B. Conclusion. This study shows that adjusted mechanical alignment (AMA) with a small under-correction of frontal deformity lead to improved functional scores following total knee replacement compared to conventional technique of neutral alignment. These results are satisfactory at short follow-up but long-term studies are needed to evaluate the difference in the rate of wear of the prosthetic components

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

Abstract. Background. Conventional TKR aims for neutral mechanical alignment which may result in a smaller lateral distal femoral condyle resection than the implant thickness. We aim to explore the mismatch between implant thickness and bone resection using 3D planning software used for Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) TKR. Methods. This is a retrospective anatomical study from pre-operative MRI 3D models for PSI TKR. Cartilage mapping allowed us to recreate the native anatomy, enabling us to quantify the mismatch between the distal lateral femoral condyle resection and the implant thickness. Results. We modelled 292 knees from PSI TKR performed between 2012 and 2015. There were 225 varus knees and 67 valgus knees, with mean supine hip-knee-angle of 5.6±3.1 degrees and 3.6±4.6 degrees, respectively. In varus knees, the mean cartilage loss from medial and lateral femoral condyle was 2.3±0.7mm and 1.1±0.8mm respectively; the mean overstuffing of the lateral condyle 1.9±2.2mm. In valgus knees, the mean cartilage loss from medial and lateral condyle was 1.4±0.8mm and 1.5±0.9mm respectively; the mean overstuffing of the lateral condyle was 4.1±1.9mm. Conclusions. Neutral alignment TKR often results in overstuffing of the lateral condyle. This may increase the patello-femoral pressure at the lateral facet in flexion. Anterior knee pain may be persistent even after patellar resurfacing due to tight lateral retinacular structures. An alternative method of alignment such as anatomic alignment may minimise this problem

Introduction: I always aim for neutral mechanical axis alignment. My principles of a successful TKA are proper alignment in all 3 planes, soft tissue balance in extension first, flexion gap balancing by parallel to tibial cut technique, maintenance of joint line, correct sizing of femoral component, and proper cement fixation. Long-term Survivorship: There is long-term data that supports the efficacy and durability of the neutral position of the proximal tibial cut. Over a 20-year follow-up there was a 92.6% success rate in my study. Other authors have found similarly successful survivorship for mechanical failure. Balance Technique in TKR: My technique to balance the knee is a balance extension gap first, which requires medial soft tissue balancing. Next, I balance the flexion gap parallel to the tibial cut. Our Results: In one study, I examined the clinical and radiographic data of 68 varus knees. Average post-operative mechanical alignment was 0 ± 3 degrees. There were no outliers which displays the reproducibility of the technique. This is the method of choice in the hands of most surgeons

No, Neutral mechanical axis has never been regarded as “necessary” to the success of TKA. In fact it has never been established as “ideal” with published data. Tibial femoral alignment after TKA is important, but it is also an issue that we do not understand completely. Neutral mechanical alignment refers to the relationship between the mechanical axes of the femur and tibia as shown on full length radiographs. “Neutral” means that these axes are collinear, i.e. that a line may be drawn from the center of the hip to the center of the ankle and it will intersect the center of the knee joint. The allure of the “straight line” has led many surgeons to regard a neutral mechanical axis as “perfection” for TKA surgery, but indeed, it is not the usual “normal” alignment for most human knees, nor is it the target for many conventional knee replacements. The “neutral mechanical axis” represents OVERCORRECTION for most knees. Moreland demonstrated in 1987 that few human knee joints are naturally aligned “in neutral”, but with the line from center of hip to center of ankle passing through the medial compartment. This tendency to relative varus mechanical axis in most human knees was corroborated by Bellemans et al in 2012. They substituted the word “constitutional varus” for what would otherwise be known as “normal alignment”. In general, patients with pathologic or significant varus alignment, whose arthroplasties have been performed competently, are at greatest risk for failure by wear, osteolysis and loosening. This is the prototypical failure mechanism that pre-occupied the surgeons responsible for making knee arthroplasty successful in the 1970s. The first paper to identify varus TKA alignment and failure due to loosening was Lotke and Ecker in 1977. They worked from short radiographs and ushered in an era of careful attention to valgus TKA alignment-not neutral alignment. Correction of varus deformity combined with ligament balancing was probably responsible for making condylar type knee arthroplasties work durably in the early days. Full length radiographs, used by Kennedy and White in 1987 to study alignment in unicompartmental arthroplasties, provide a more sophisticated method of evaluating knee alignment. These studies must be aligned with correct rotation to be valid. Computerised navigation was probably responsible for some surgeon's dedication to the neutral mechanical axis. The study of Parratte et al from Mayo has received much attention and argued that a neutral mechanical axis did NOT improve success rates at 15 years. It should be noted that these TKA's were expertly performed and even the less well-aligned cases were not “excessively” malaligned. This study does not state that alignment is irrelevant to the success of TKA, but rather that a range of alignments (with stability) might be expected to produce a durable arthroplasty. Concurrent with these developments has been an interest in “under-correcting” knee deformity or allowing osseous anatomy (with compensation for cartilage loss) guide component position. In truth, it is inaccurate to describe conventional “align and balance” techniques as necessarily seeking a neutral mechanical axis. Most classical alignment techniques do, however, alter the angle of component position from the original articular surface angles and theoretically may not function as well with the native soft tissue environment. Surgeons who would align the TKA identically to the arthritic knee may credit previous generations with improving the technology such that this is a possibility. If every patient is to be aligned with this technique, however, this suggests that soft tissue pathology does not exist. As with all complex issues, glib answers are to be avoided and deep analysis is appropriate

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 gap 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, sticking with 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. 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 may in fact be safe with respect to survivorship and provide better function with a more “natural” feeling knee

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

Introduction. Neutral mechanical alignment in TKA has been shown to be an important consideration for survivorship, wear, and aseptic loosening. However, native knee anatomy is described by a joint line in 3° of varus, 2–3° of mechanical distal femoral valgus, and 2–3° of proximal tibia varus. Described kinematic planning methods replicate native joint alignment in extension without changing tibiofemoral alignment, but do not account for native alignment through a range of motion. An asymmetric TKA femoral component with a thicker medial femoral condyle and posterior condylar internal rotation paired with an asymmetric polyethylene insert aligns the joint line in 3° of varus while maintaining distal femoral and proximal tibial cuts perpendicular to mechanical axis. The asymmetric components recreate an anatomic varus joint line while avoiding tibiofemoral malalignment or femoral component internal rotation, a risk factor for patellofemoral maltracking. The study seeks to determine how many patients would be candidates for a kinematically planned knee without violating the principle of a neutral mechanical axis (0° ± 3°). Methods. A cohort comprised of 55 consecutive preoperative THA patients with asymptomatic knees and 55 consecutive preoperative primary unilateral TKA patients underwent simultaneous biplanar radiographic imaging. Full length coronal images from the thoracolumbar junction to the ankles were measured by two independent observers for the following: mechanical tibiofemoral angle (mTFA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). Patients who met the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 87°±3°; and mMPTA 87°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with an asymmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis. Similarly, patients with the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 90°±3°; and mMPTA 90°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with a symmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis. Results. In this cohort of 110 patients, the mean mTFA was 1° varus ± 5°, the mean mLDFA was 87° ± 3°, mMPTA 87°± 2°. The comparison of patients meeting each of the three conditions required for a TKA with a neutral mechanical axis and a kinematic joint line are outlined in Table 1. Conclusion. A TKA with kinematic 3° varus joint line and neutral mechanical axis was possible in 52% of patients using an asymmetric implant and 23% of patients using a symmetric implant. Previous descriptions of kinematic planning using standard TKA components required compromise of neutral mechanical axis alignment with detrimental effects on overall survivorship. Knee arthroplasty using an asymmetric implant may achieve the best of both worlds, neutral mechanical axis and a kinematic joint line, in a large percentage of patients

Introduction. Debate over appropriate alignment in total knee arthroplasty has become a topical subject as technology allows planned alignments that differ from a neutral mechanical axis. These surgical techniques employ patient-specific cutting blocks derived from 3D reconstructions of pre-operative imaging, commonly MRI or CT. The patient-specific OtisMed system uses a detailed MRI scan of the knee for 3D reconstruction to estimate the kinematic axis, dictating the cutting planes in the custom-fit cutting blocks machined for each patient [1, 2]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between post-operative limb alignment and implant migration in subjects receiving shape match derived kinematic alignment. Methods. In a randomized controlled trial comparing patient-specific cutting blocks to navigated surgery, seventeen subjects in the patient specific group had complete 1 year data. They received cruciate retaining cemented total knee replacements (Triathlon, Stryker) using patient-specific cutting blocks (OtisMed custom-fit blocks, Stryker). Intra-operatively, 6–8 tantalum markers (1 mm diameter) were inserted in the proximal tibia. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) [3, 4] exams were performed with subjects supine on post-operative day 1 and at 6 week, 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups with dual overhead tubes (Rad 92, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA), digital detectors (CXDI-55C, Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan), and a uniplanar calibration box (Halifax Biomedical Inc., Mabou, NS, Canada). RSA exams were analyzed in Model-based RSA (Version 3.32, RSAcore, Leiden, The Netherlands. Post-operative limb alignment was evaluated from weight-bearing long-leg films. Results. Post-operative limb alignments ranged from 5 degrees of varus to 5 degrees of valgus. Comparing implant migration to post-operative alignment did not demonstrate a relationship between deviation from neutral mechanical alignment and increased migration (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.25, P = 0.33) (Figure 1). Conclusions. Previous studies have suggested that alignment of greater than 3 degrees from neutral may have adverse effects on implant survivorship [5], but this early data does not suggest increased migration with non-neutral alignment. Continued evaluation with RSA to 2 years will be performed to monitor these subjects over the longer term

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. METHODS. A prospective series of Twelve (12) eviscerated torso's were acquired for a total of twenty four (24) limb specimens that included intact pelvises, femoral heads, knees, and ankles. The cadavers received MRI-scans, which were used to manufacture the Shape Match cutting guides. Additionally all specimen received “pre-operative” CT-scans to determine leg axes. Two (2) investigating surgeons performed total knee arthroplasties on randomly chosen sides by following the surgical technique using conventional instruments. On the contralateral sides, implantation of the same prosthesis was done using the Kinematic Shape Match Cutting Guides. A navigation system was used to check for leg alignement. Implant alignement was determined using post-operative CT-scans. For statistical analysis SPSS was used. RESULTS. In measurements using the navigation system, the overall alignment of the leg showed no significant differences between the two tested systems. This was also found in the CT-Measurements. In the Shape Match group the difference between the planned and the final implantation regarding overall limb alignment ranged between −0,5° (valgus) and 6° varus (p=0,518; CI −1,97°/1,05°). The leg alignement in the conventional group ranged between −2,5° and 13° varus (p=0,176; CI −4,93°/1,02). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. As expected, the two compared system employ different alignment strategies, which reflected in variations of the combinations of the three-dimensional component position on the femur and the tibia. These different strategies result in overall leg alignment that compares well between the two different methods, with fewer outliers in the Shape Match group

Non-invasive assessment of lower limb mechanical alignment and assessment of knee laxity using navigation technology is now possible during knee flexion owing to recent software developments. We report a comparison of this new technology with a validated commercially available invasive navigation system. We tested cadaveric lower limbs (n=12) with a commercial invasive navigation system against the non-invasive system. Mechanical femorotibial angle (MFTA) was measured with no stress, then with 15Nm of varus and valgus moment. MFTA was recorded at 10° intervals from full knee extension to 90° flexion. The investigator was blinded to all MFTA measurements. Repeatability coefficient was calculated to reflect each system's level of precision, and agreement between the systems; 3° was chosen as the upper limit of precision and agreement when measuring MFTA in the clinical setting based on current literature. Precision of the invasive system was superior and acceptable in all conditions of stress throughout flexion (repeatability coefficient <2°). Precision of the non-invasive system was acceptable from extension until 60° flexion (repeatability coefficient <3°), beyond which precision was unacceptable. Agreement between invasive and non-invasive systems was within 1.7° from extension to 50° flexion when measuring MFTA with no varus / valgus applied. When applying varus / valgus stress agreement between the systems was acceptable from full extension to 20° & 30° knee flexion respectively (repeatability coefficient <3°). Beyond this the systems did not demonstrate sufficient agreement. These results indicate that the non-invasive system can provide reliable quantitative data on MFTA and laxity in the range relevant to knee examination

Non-invasive assessment of lower limb mechanical alignment and assessment of knee laxity using navigation technology is now possible during knee flexion owing to recent software developments. We report a comparison of this new technology with a validated commercially available invasive navigation system. We tested cadaveric lower limbs (n=12) with a commercial invasive navigation system against the non-invasive system. Mechanical femorotibial angle (MFTA) was measured with no stress, then with 15 Nm of varus and valgus moment. MFTA was recorded at 10° intervals from full knee extension to 90° flexion. The investigator was blinded to all MFTA measurements. Repeatability coefficient was calculated to reflect each system's level of precision, and agreement between the systems; 3° was chosen as the upper limit of precision and agreement when measuring MFTA in the clinical setting based on current literature. Precision of the invasive system was superior and acceptable in all conditions of stress throughout flexion (repeatability coefficient <2°). Precision of the non-invasive system was acceptable from extension until 60° flexion (repeatability coefficient <3°), beyond which precision was unacceptable. Agreement between invasive and non-invasive systems was within 1.7° from extension to 50° flexion when measuring MFTA with no varus / valgus applied. When applying varus / valgus stress agreement between the systems was acceptable from full extension to 30° knee flexion (repeatability coefficient <3°). Beyond this the systems did not demonstrate sufficient agreement. These results indicate that the non-invasive system can provide reliable quantitative data on MFTA and laxity in the range relevant to knee examination

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

It is clear in 2013 that there is a substantial opportunity to improve patient outcomes after total knee replacement. Much attention in the last decade has focused on the apparent satisfaction gap between patients who have had total hip arthroplasty and those who have had total knee arthroplasty. Most authors note that a higher proportion of total hip patients claim to have complete satisfaction or note that they have forgotten that they had the joint replaced. The concept of “the forgotten joint replacement” is an interesting one because as surgeons and researchers we all recognise that neither total hip replacement nor total knee replacement will completely restore the native hip or knee joint's dynamic 3D biomechanics or kinematics. What the concept of the forgotten joint does tell us however is that there is a level of kinematic function above which humans cannot detect a difference with normal function. The inherent simplicity of the ball-and-socket design of the hip joint means we can achieve this level of function more reliably and reproducibly than we do in the knee joint. The knee joint presents a more difficult challenge.

Recent data suggests that there is a definable trade-off in total knee prosthesis design, and likely with component position and limb alignment, between those optimised for the best kinematics and those optimised for the best durability using contemporary biomaterials (namely metal, ceramic and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene). Given this inherent trade-off then there will be an almost never-ending debate about what constitutes “the best” overall knee implant design because that will inevitably require an individual value-judgement about the relative merit of better kinematics or better durability. Currently, we have some insights into this trade-off when we consider the role of unicompartmental knee replacement in 2013. There is little debate that unicompartmental knee replacement results in closer-to-normal knee kinematics than does total knee replacement and that many patients seem to benefit from a quicker recovery and easier rehabilitation. Data from multiple national joint registries however shows that UKR is not quite as durable as total knee replacement (mean yearly failure rate 1.53% for UKR versus 1.26% for TKR). Different surgeons and different surgeons will look at that data however and come to markedly different conclusions about how to act — some will discount the difference in durability and favor the better function/quicker recovery of UKR while other equally intelligent persons will discount the difference in function and prefer the demonstrated better durability of TKR. Like any value-judgement there is no right answer or wrong answer.

As surgeons and researchers we do have opportunities in regard to surgical technique that remain unexplored. We have been limited over the past several decades by thinking primarily in terms of 2D static analyses of alignment, rotation and ligament balance. This is primarily because most assessments have been done using plain radiographs. The last decade however has seen a marked improvement in our capabilities for 3D imaging and dynamic assessment of knee joint function. The promise of computer-navigated and robotic-assisted surgery has largely remained unfulfilled as the limitations of 2D targets have come into focus. It is my belief that tomorrow's gains in total knee replacement will not involve dramatic changes in prosthesis design but instead on defining and then hitting more precise 3D targets for alignment, rotation and ligament balance in surgery. For surgeons and researchers this is an exciting time as there is a distinct opportunity to improve outcomes for millions of total knee replacement patients over the coming decades.

Most discussions of alignment after TKA focus on defining “malalignment”; the prefix mal- is derived from Latin and refers to bad, abnormal or defective and thus by definition malalignment is bad, abnormal or defective alignment. No one then wants a “malaligned” knee. The intellectually curious, however, might switch the focus to the other end of the spectrum and ask what does an ideally aligned knee look like in 2015? Is there really one simple target value for alignment in all patients undergoing TKA? Is that target broad (zero +/−3 degrees mechanical axis) or is it a narrow target in which a penalty, in regard to durability or function, is incurred as soon as you deviate even 1 degree? Is that ideal target the same if we are evaluating the functional performance of the TKA versus the durability of the TKA or could there be 2 different targets, one that maximises function and one that maximises durability? Is that target adequately described by a single 2-dimensional value (varus/valgus alignment in the frontal plane) as measured on a static radiograph? Is that value the same if the patient has a fixed pelvic obliquity, a varus thrust in the contralateral knee or an abnormal foot progression angle?

It is revealing to ask “do we understand TKA alignment better in 2015 than in 1979…?” Maybe not. We allowed ourselves over the past 2 decades to be intellectually complacent in regard to questions of ideal alignment after TKA. The constraints on accuracy imposed by our standard total knee instruments and the constraints on assessment imposed by 2-dimensional radiographs made broad, simple targets like a mechanical axis +/− 3 degrees reasonable starting points yet we have not further worked to verify if we can do better. It is naïve to think that the complex motion at the knee occurring in 6-dimensions over time can be reduced to a single static target value like a neutral mechanical axis and have strong predictive value in regard to the success or failure of an individual TKA. We assessed 399 knees of 3 different modern cemented designs at 15 years and found that factors other than alignment were more important than alignment in determining the 15-year survival.

Until more precise alignment targets can be identified for individual patients or sub-groups of patients then a neutral mechanical axis remains a reasonable surgical goal. However, the traditional description of TKA alignment as a dichotomous variable (aligned versus malaligned) defined around the broad, generic target value of 0 +/− 3 degrees relative to the mechanical axis is of little practical value in predicting the durability or function of modern TKA.