Evaluating musculoskeletal conditions of the lower limb and understanding the pathophysiology of complex bone kinematics is challenging. Static images do not take into account the dynamic component of relative bone motion and muscle activation. Fluoroscopy and dynamic MRI have important limitations. Dynamic CT (4D-CT) is an emerging alternative that combines high spatial and temporal resolution, with an increased availability in clinical practice. 4D-CT allows simultaneous visualization of bone morphology and joint kinematics. This unique combination makes it an ideal tool to evaluate functional disorders of the musculoskeletal system. In the lower limb, 4D-CT has been used to diagnose femoroacetabular impingement, patellofemoral, ankle and subtalar joint instability, or reduced range of motion. 4D-CT has also been used to demonstrate the effect of surgery, mainly on patellar instability. 4D-CT will need further research and validation before it can be widely used in clinical practice. We believe, however, it is here to stay, and will become a reference in the diagnosis of lower limb conditions and the evaluation of treatment options.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):822–827.

Aims

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using functional alignment aims to implant the components with minimal compromise of the soft-tissue envelope by restoring the plane and obliquity of the non-arthritic joint. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of TKA with functional alignment on mediolateral soft-tissue balance as assessed using intraoperative sensor-guided technology.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery.

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.

We have previously reported the short-term radiological results of a randomised controlled trial comparing kinematically aligned total knee replacement (TKR) and mechanically aligned TKR, along with early pain and function scores. In this study we report the two-year clinical results from this trial. A total of 88 patients (88 knees) were randomly allocated to undergo either kinematically aligned TKR using patient-specific guides, or mechanically aligned TKR using conventional instruments. They were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The patients and the clinical evaluator were blinded to the method of alignment.

At a minimum of two years, all outcomes were better for the kinematically aligned group, as determined by the mean Oxford knee score (40 (15 to 48) versus 33 (13 to 48); p = 0.005), the mean Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC) (15 (0 to 63) versus 26 (0 to 73); p = 0.005), mean combined Knee Society score (160 (93 to 200) versus 137 (64 to 200); p= 0.005) and mean flexion of 121° (100 to 150) versus 113° (80 to 130) (p = 0.002). The odds ratio of having a pain-free knee at two years with the kinematically aligned technique (Oxford and WOMAC pain scores) was 3.2 (p = 0.020) and 4.9 (p = 0.001), respectively, compared with the mechanically aligned technique. Patients in the kinematically aligned group walked a mean of 50 feet further in hospital prior to discharge compared with the mechanically aligned group (p = 0.044).

In this study, the use of a kinematic alignment technique performed with patient-specific guides provided better pain relief and restored better function and range of movement than the mechanical alignment technique performed with conventional instruments.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:907–13.