Collateral ligament release is advocated in total
knee arthroplasty (TKA) to deal with significant
Valgus knee deformity can present a number of
unique surgical challenges for the total knee arthroplasty (TKA)
surgeon. Understanding the typical patterns of bone and soft-tissue pathology
in the valgus arthritic knee is critical for appropriate surgical
planning. This review aims to provide the knee arthroplasty surgeon
with an understanding of surgical management strategies for the
treatment of valgus knee arthritis. Lateral femoral and tibial deficiencies, contracted lateral soft
tissues, attenuated medial soft tissues, and multiplanar deformities
may all be present in the valgus arthritic knee. A number of classifications
have been reported in order to guide surgical management, and a variety
of surgical strategies have been described with satisfactory clinical
results. Depending on the severity of the deformity, a variety of
TKA implant designs may be appropriate for use. Regardless of an operating surgeon’s preferred surgical strategy,
adherence to a step-wise approach to deformity correction is advised. Cite this article:
Obtaining a balanced flexion gap with correct
femoral component rotation is one of the prerequisites for a successful
outcome after total knee replacement (TKR). Different techniques
for achieving this have been described. In this study we prospectively
compared gap-balancing Both groups systematically reproduced a similar external rotation
of the femoral component relative to the surgical transepicondylar
axis: 2.4°
We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p <
0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p <
0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.