Background. Adequate rotation of femoral component in total knee arthroplasty(TKR) is mandatory for preventing numerous adverse sequelae. The transepicondylar axis has been a well-accepted reference for femoral component rotation in the measured resection technique. In this technique, measured resection is performed referenced off the tibial cut - perpendicular to the tibial mechanical axis with the knee in 90 ° of flexion. However, to the best of our knowledge, it is not known whether this technique apply well to a knee with tibia vara. This study evaluates the reliability of the transepicondylar axis as a rotational landmark in knees with tibia vara. Methods. We selected 101 osteoarthritis knees in 84 symptomatic patients(mean age: 69.24 ± 5.68) with proximal tibia vara (Group A). Group A was compared with 150 osteoarthritic knees without tibia vara in 122 symptomatic patients (mean age: 69.51 ± 6.01) (Group B). The guide line for selection of all these knees were based on the degree of tibia vara angle (TVA) which was formed by line perpendicular to epiphysis and by anatomical axis of the tibia - all measured in radiographs of the entire lower limb. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) axial images with most prominent part of both femoral condyles were used for measurement of transepicondylar axis(TE), anteroposterior axis(AP) and posterior condylar axis(PC). Results. The mean TVA of group A was 8.94° ± 3.11 and group B was 1.24° ± 0.85. The TE line in Group A showed 6.09 ° ± 1.43 of external rotation, relative to PC. This did not show statistical difference compared with 5.95 ° ± 1.58 in Group B (p=0.4717). The AP line in Group A showed 6.06 ° ± 1.93 of external rotation, relative to the line perpendicular to PC. This was statistically significant when compared to 5.44 ° ± 2.13 in Group B (p=0.020). Conclusion. There is no difference between knees without tibia vara compared those with tibia vara with regards to transepicondylar axis. In addition, both groups have almost identical external rotation of approximately 6 °. The AP axis was only approximately 0.5 ° difference between the two groups. The distal femoral geometry was not affected by tibia vara deformity, that is, there were no hypoplastic or hyperplastic deformities of medial femoral condyle in osteoarthritic knees with tibia vara. The use of transepicondylar axes in determining femoral rotation may produce flexion asymmetry in knees with proximal tibia vara. So, It should be pointed out that more attention should be paid on femoral component rotation and flexion gap balancing in knees with proximal tibial vara

Introduction. Proper rotational alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) could be achieved using several techniques. The self adjustment methodology allows the alignment of the tibial component under the femoral component after several flexion-extension movements. Our hypothesis was that this technique allowed a posterior tibial component alignment parallel to the femoral component posterior bicondylar axis. The aim of this study was to access this hypothesis using a post-operative CT-scan study. Materials and Methods. This prospective CT-scan study involved 94 TKA. Theses TKA were divided in two groups: group1: 50 knees with a pre-operative genu varum deformity (mean HKA: 172.2°), operated using a medial parapatellar approach, and group 2: 44 knees with a preoperative valgus deformity (mean HKA: 188.7°), operated using a lateral parapatellar approach. Four measures were done on each post-operative CT-scan: angle between anatomical transepicondylar axis and femoral component posterior bicondylar axis (FCPCA), angle between FCPCA and tibial component marginal posterior axis, angle between tibial component marginal posterior axis and bony tibial plateau marginal posterior axis (BTPMPA), angle between transepicondylar axis and tibial component marginal posterior axis. Each measure was repeated, after one month by the same independent observer. Statistical evaluation used non-parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test to compare each group of measures, and intraobserver reproducibility was assessed using ANOVA test, with an error rate of 5%. Results. Intraobserver measurements were reproducible. Mean FCPCA was to 3,1° (SD:1,91) in group 1 and 4,7° (DS: 2,96) in group 2. Tibial component was positioned in external rotation in both groups, in relation to FCPCA: (group 1: mean angle: 0,7° (SD:4,45), group 2: mean angle: 0,9° (SD:4,53)) and in relation to BTPMPA: (group1: mean angle: 6,1° (SD: 5,85); group2: mean angle: 12,5° (SD: 8,6)). There was no statistical difference between these two groups. Tibial component was positioned in internal rotation in relation to anatomical transepicondylar axis: (Group1: mean angle: 1,9° (SD: 4,93); group 2: mean angle: 3° (SD: 4.38)). Discussion. By using the self adjustment technique, tibial component is aligned parallel to the femoral component regardless of the initial frontal deformity and the surgical approach. However, there was a difference in tibial component axis and BTPMPA, between the two groups. This difference should be explained by the difference in morphology of the tibial plateau bone in knee with genu valgum deformity. The self adjustment technique is a reliable method to obtain a proper rotational alignment of the tibial component in TKA