Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 5 | Pages 7 - 10
1 Oct 2021
Morris DLJ Cresswell T Espag M Tambe AA Clark DI Ollivere BJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 6 | Pages 5 - 11
1 Dec 2020
Sharma V Turmezei T Wain J McNamara I


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 1 | Pages 4 - 9
1 Feb 2020
Logishetty K Muirhead-Allwood SK Cobb JP


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 3 | Pages 3 - 7
1 Jun 2019
Patel NG Waterson HB Phillips JRA Toms AD


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 4 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Aug 2017
Titchener AG Tambe AA Clark DI


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 9 - 13
1 Jun 2014
Waterson HB Philips JRA Mandalia VI Toms AD

Mechanical alignment has been a fundamental tenet of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) since modern knee replacement surgery was developed in the 1970s. The objective of mechanical alignment was to infer the greatest biomechanical advantage to the implant to prevent early loosening and failure. Over the last 40 years a great deal of innovation in TKA technology has been focusing on how to more accurately achieve mechanical alignment. Recently the concept of mechanical alignment has been challenged, and other alignment philosophies are being explored with the intention of trying to improve patient outcomes following TKA.

This article examines the evolution of the mechanical alignment concept and whether there are any viable alternatives.