Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system.Aims
Methods
Functional alignment (FA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to achieve balanced gaps by adjusting implant positioning while minimizing changes to constitutional joint line obliquity (JLO). Although FA uses kinematic alignment (KA) as a starting point, the final implant positions can vary significantly between these two approaches. This study used the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification to compare differences between KA and final FA positions. A retrospective analysis compared pre-resection and post-implantation alignments in 2,116 robotic-assisted FA TKAs. The lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were measured to determine the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA = MPTA – LDFA), JLO (JLO = MPTA + LDFA), and CPAK type. The primary outcome was the proportion of knees that varied ≤ 2° for aHKA and ≤ 3° for JLO from their KA to FA positions, and direction and magnitude of those changes per CPAK phenotype. Secondary outcomes included proportion of knees that maintained their CPAK phenotype, and differences between sexes.Aims
Methods
