The aim of mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty is to align all knees into a fixed neutral position, even though not all knees are the same. As a result, mechanical alignment often alters a patient’s constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity, resulting in soft-tissue imbalance. This annotation provides an overview of how the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification can be used to predict imbalance with mechanical alignment, and then offers practical guidance for bone balancing, minimizing the need for soft-tissue releases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):525–531

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

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

Correct positioning and alignment of components during primary total knee replacement (TKR) is widely accepted to be an important predictor of patient satisfaction and implant durability. This retrospective study reports the effect of the post-operative mechanical axis of the lower limb in the coronal plane on implant survival following primary TKR. A total of 501 TKRs in 396 patients were divided into an aligned group with a neutral mechanical axis (± 3°) and a malaligned group where the mechanical axis deviated from neutral by > 3°. At 15 years’ follow-up, 33 of 458 (7.2%) TKRs were revised for aseptic loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a weak tendency towards improved survival with restoration of a neutral mechanical axis, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.47). We found that the relationship between survival of a primary TKR and mechanical axis alignment is weaker than that described in a number of previous reports

Aims. Alternative alignment concepts, including kinematic and restricted kinematic, have been introduced to help improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results, along with patient satisfaction, following TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment. Methods. A total of 121 consecutive TKAs performed between 11 February 2018 to 11 June 2019 with preoperative varus deformity were reviewed at minimum one-year follow-up. Three knees were excluded due to severe preoperative varus deformity greater than 15°, and a further three due to requiring revision surgery, leaving 109 patients and 115 knees to undergo primary TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment with advanced technology. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the preoperative limb varus deformity: Group A with 1° to 5° varus (43 knees); Group B between 6° and 10° varus (56 knees); and Group C with varus greater than 10° (16 knees). This study group was compared with a matched cohort of 115 TKAs and 115 patients using a neutral mechanical alignment target with manual instruments performed from 24 October 2016 to 14 January 2019. Results. Mean overall patient satisfaction for the entire cohort was 4.7 (SE 0.1) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 93% being either very satisfied or satisfied compared with a Likert of 4.3 and patient satisfaction of 81% in the mechanical alignment group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.006 respectively). At mean follow-up of 17 months (11 to 27), the mean overall Likert, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Society Knee and Function Scores were significantly better in the kinematic group than in the neutral mechanical alignment group. The most common complication in both groups was contracture requiring manipulation under anaesthesia, involving seven knees (6.1%) in the kinematic group and nine knees (7.8%) in the mechanical alignment group. Conclusion. With the advent of advanced technology, and the ability to obtain accurate bone cuts, the target limb alignment, and soft-tissue balance within millimetres, using a restricted kinematic alignment concept demonstrated excellent patient satisfaction following primary TKA. Longer-term analysis is required as to the durability of this method. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):59–66

Aims. The surgical target for optimal implant positioning in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty remains the subject of ongoing discussion. One of the proposed targets is to recreate the knee’s functional behaviour as per its pre-diseased state. The aim of this study was to optimize implant positioning, starting from mechanical alignment (MA), toward restoring the pre-diseased status, including ligament strain and kinematic patterns, in a patient population. Methods. We used an active appearance model-based approach to segment the preoperative CT of 21 osteoarthritic patients, which identified the osteophyte-free surfaces and estimated cartilage from the segmented bones; these geometries were used to construct patient-specific musculoskeletal models of the pre-diseased knee. Subsequently, implantations were simulated using the MA method, and a previously developed optimization technique was employed to find the optimal implant position that minimized the root mean square deviation between pre-diseased and postoperative ligament strains and kinematics. Results. There were evident biomechanical differences between the simulated patient models, but also trends that appeared reproducible at the population level. Optimizing the implant position significantly reduced the maximum observed strain root mean square deviations within the cohort from 36.5% to below 5.3% for all but the anterolateral ligament; and concomitantly reduced the kinematic deviations from 3.8 mm (SD 1.7) and 4.7° (SD 1.9°) with MA to 2.7 mm (SD 1.4) and 3.7° (SD 1.9°) relative to the pre-diseased state. To achieve this, the femoral component consistently required translational adjustments in the anterior, lateral, and proximal directions, while the tibial component required a more posterior slope and varus rotation in most cases. Conclusion. These findings confirm that MA-induced biomechanical alterations relative to the pre-diseased state can be reduced by optimizing the implant position, and may have implications to further advance pre-planning in robotic-assisted surgery in order to restore pre-diseased knee function. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1231–1239

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty is a well-documented phenomenon. Although many factors have been implicated, including modifiable and nonmodifiable patient factors, emphasis over the past decade has been on implant alignment and stability as both a cause of, and a solution to, this problem. Several alignment targets have evolved with a proliferation of techniques following the introduction of computer and robotic-assisted surgery. Mechanical alignment targets may achieve mechanically-sound alignment while ignoring the soft tissue envelope; kinematic alignment respects the soft tissue envelope while ignoring the mechanical environment. Functional alignment is proposed as a hybrid technique to allow mechanically-sound, soft tissue-friendly alignment targets to be identified and achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):276–279

Aims. A comprehensive classification for coronal lower limb alignment with predictive capabilities for knee balance would be beneficial in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This paper describes the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification and examines its utility in preoperative soft tissue balance prediction, comparing kinematic alignment (KA) to mechanical alignment (MA). Methods. A radiological analysis of 500 healthy and 500 osteoarthritic (OA) knees was used to assess the applicability of the CPAK classification. CPAK comprises nine phenotypes based on the arithmetic HKA (aHKA) that estimates constitutional limb alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). Intraoperative balance was compared within each phenotype in a cohort of 138 computer-assisted TKAs randomized to KA or MA. Primary outcomes included descriptive analyses of healthy and OA groups per CPAK type, and comparison of balance at 10° of flexion within each type. Secondary outcomes assessed balance at 45° and 90° and bone recuts required to achieve final knee balance within each CPAK type. Results. There was similar frequency distribution between healthy and arthritic groups across all CPAK types. The most common categories were Type II (39.2% healthy vs 32.2% OA), Type I (26.4% healthy vs 19.4% OA) and Type V (15.4% healthy vs 14.6% OA). CPAK Types VII, VIII, and IX were rare in both populations. Across all CPAK types, a greater proportion of KA TKAs achieved optimal balance compared to MA. This effect was largest, and statistically significant, in CPAK Types I (100% KA vs 15% MA; p < 0.001), Type II (78% KA vs 46% MA; p = 0.018). and Type IV (89% KA vs 0% MA; p < 0.001). Conclusion. CPAK is a pragmatic, comprehensive classification for coronal knee alignment, based on constitutional alignment and JLO, that can be used in healthy and arthritic knees. CPAK identifies which knee phenotypes may benefit most from KA when optimization of soft tissue balance is prioritized. Further, it will allow for consistency of reporting in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):329–337

Aims. Our aim was to compare kinematic with mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients and Methods. We performed a prospective blinded randomised controlled trial to compare the functional outcome of patients undergoing TKA in mechanical alignment (MA) with those in kinematic alignment (KA). A total of 71 patients undergoing TKA were randomised to either kinematic (n = 36) or mechanical alignment (n = 35). Pre- and post-operative hip-knee-ankle radiographs were analysed. The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), American Knee Society Score, Short Form-36, Euro-Qol (EQ-5D), range of movement (ROM), two minute walk, and timed up and go tests were assessed pre-operatively and at six weeks, three and six months and one year post-operatively. Results. A total of 78% of the kinematically aligned group (28 patients) and 77% of the mechanically aligned group (27 patients) were within 3° of their pre-operative plan. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean KOOS (difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.4 to 12.1, p = 0.80), EQ-5D (difference 0.8, 95% CI -7.9 to 9.6, p = 0.84), ROM (difference 0.1, 95% CI -6.0 to 6.1, p = 0.99), two minute distance tolerance (difference 20.0, 95% CI -52.8 to 92.8, p = 0.58), or timed up and go (difference 0.78, 95% CI -2.3 to 3.9, p = 0.62) between the groups at one year. Conclusion. Kinematically aligned TKAs appear to have comparable short-term results to mechanically aligned TKAs with no significant differences in function one year post-operatively. Further research is required to see if any theoretical long-term functional benefits of kinematic alignment are realised or if there are any potential effects on implant survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1360–8

Aims. It is unknown whether kinematic alignment (KA) objectively improves knee balance in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), despite this being the biomechanical rationale for its use. This study aimed to determine whether restoring the constitutional alignment using a restrictive KA protocol resulted in better quantitative knee balance than mechanical alignment (MA). Methods. We conducted a randomized superiority trial comparing patients undergoing TKA assigned to KA within a restrictive safe zone or MA. Optimal knee balance was defined as an intercompartmental pressure difference (ICPD) of 15 psi or less using a pressure sensor. The primary endpoint was the mean intraoperative ICPD at 10° of flexion prior to knee balancing. Secondary outcomes included balance at 45° and 90°, requirements for balancing procedures, and presence of tibiofemoral lift-off. Results. A total of 63 patients (70 knees) were randomized to KA and 62 patients (68 knees) to MA. Mean ICPD at 10° flexion in the KA group was 11.7 psi (SD 13.1) compared with 32.0 psi in the MA group (SD 28.9), with a mean difference in ICPD between KA and MA of 20.3 psi (p < 0.001). Mean ICPD in the KA group was significantly lower than in the MA group at 45° and 90°, respectively (25.2 psi MA vs 14.8 psi KA, p = 0.004; 19.1 psi MA vs 11.7 psi KA, p < 0.002, respectively). Overall, participants in the KA group were more likely to achieve optimal knee balance (80% vs 35%; p < 0.001). Bone recuts to achieve knee balance were more likely to be required in the MA group (49% vs 9%; p < 0.001). More participants in the MA group had tibiofemoral lift-off (43% vs 13%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. This study provides persuasive evidence that restoring the constitutional alignment with KA in TKA results in a statistically significant improvement in quantitative knee balance, and further supports this technique as a viable alternative to MA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(1):117–124

Aims. The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Results. A total of 49 studies were identified for inclusion. With respect to PROMs, there was two-star evidence in support of mechanical axis alignment (MAA), femorotibial angle (FTA), femoral coronal angle (FCA), tibial coronal angle (TCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and implant size/overhang or offset on PROMs, and one-star evidence in support of tibial sagittal angle (TSA), impacting PROMs. With respect to survival, there was three- to four-star evidence in support FTA, FCA, TCA, and TSA, moderate evidence in support of femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and limited evidence in support of MAA, FSA, and implant size/overhang or offset impacting survival. Conclusion. Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that PROMs are impacted by the accuracy of implant placement, and malalignment does not appear to be a significant driver of the observed high rates of patient dissatisfaction following TKA. However, FTA, FCA, TCA, TSA, and implant rotation demonstrate a moderate-strong relationship with implant survival. Efforts should be made to improve the accuracy of these parameters in order to improve TKA survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1449–1456

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of phenotypes in Asian patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) and assess whether the phenotype affected the clinical outcome and survival of mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We also compared the survival of the group in which the phenotype unintentionally remained unchanged with those in which it was corrected to neutral.

Orthopaedic surgeons are currently faced with an overwhelming number of choices surrounding total knee arthroplasty (TKA), not only with the latest technologies and prostheses, but also fundamental decisions on alignment philosophies. From ‘mechanical’ to ‘adjusted mechanical’ to ‘restricted kinematic’ to ‘unrestricted kinematic’ — and how constitutional alignment relates to these — there is potential for ambiguity when thinking about and discussing such concepts. This annotation summarizes the various alignment strategies currently employed in TKA. It provides a clear framework and consistent language that will assist surgeons to compare confidently and contrast the concepts, while also discussing the latest opinions about alignment in TKA. Finally, it provides suggestions for applying consistent nomenclature to future research, especially as we explore the implications of 3D alignment patterns on patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):102–108.

Aims

The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification has been developed to predict individual variations in inherent knee alignment. The impact of preoperative and postoperative CPAK classification phenotype on the postoperative clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains elusive. This study aimed to examine the effect of postoperative CPAK classification phenotypes (I to IX), and their pre- to postoperative changes on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Aims

Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up.

As advancements in total knee arthroplasty progress at an exciting pace, two areas are of special interest, as they directly impact implant design and surgical decision making. Knee morphometry considers the three-dimensional shape of the articulating surfaces within the knee joint, and knee phenotyping provides the ability to categorize alignment into practical groupings that can be used in both clinical and research settings. This annotation discusses the details of these concepts, and the ways in which they are helping us better understand the individual subtleties of each patient’s knee.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1363–1368.