The kinematic alignment (KA) approach to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently increased in popularity. Accordingly, a number of derivatives have arisen and have caused confusion. Clarification is therefore needed for a better understanding of KA-TKA. Calipered (or true, pure) KA is performed by cutting the bone parallel to the articular surface, compensating for cartilage wear. In soft-tissue respecting KA, the tibial cutting surface is decided parallel to the femoral cutting surface (or trial component) with in-line traction. These approaches are categorized as unrestricted KA because there is no consideration of leg alignment or component orientation. Restricted KA is an approach where the periarthritic joint surface is replicated within a safe range, due to concerns about extreme alignments that have been considered ‘alignment outliers’ in the neutral mechanical alignment approach. More recently, functional alignment and inverse kinematic alignment have been advocated, where bone cuts are made following intraoperative planning, using intraoperative measurements acquired with computer assistance to fulfill good coordination of soft-tissue balance and alignment. The KA-TKA approach aims to restore the patients’ own harmony of three knee elements (morphology, soft-tissue balance, and alignment) and eventually the patients’ own kinematics. The respective approaches start from different points corresponding to one of the elements, yet each aim for the same goal, although the existing implants and techniques have not yet perfectly fulfilled that goal.

Aims

The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification is a simple and comprehensive system for predicting pre-arthritic knee alignment. However, when the CPAK classification is applied in the Asian population, which is characterized by more varus and wider distribution in lower limb alignment, modifications in the boundaries of arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) and joint line obliquity (JLO) should be considered. The purposes of this study were as follows: first, to propose a modified CPAK classification based on the actual joint line obliquity (aJLO) and wider range of aHKA in the Asian population; second, to test this classification in a cohort of Asians with healthy knees; third, to propose individualized alignment targets for different CPAK types in kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

Nearly 99,000 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in UK annually. Despite plenty of research, the satisfaction rate of this surgery is around 80%. One of the important intraoperative factors affecting the outcome is alignment. The relationship between joint obliquity and functional outcomes is not well understood. Therefore, a study is required to investigate and compare the effects of two types of alignment (mechanical and kinematic) on functional outcomes and range of motion.

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the proportion of patients with outlier varus or valgus alignment in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA), whether those with outlier varus or valgus alignment have higher forces in the medial or lateral compartments of the knee than those with in-range alignment and whether measurements of the alignment of the limb, knee and components predict compartment forces.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the post-operative radiographic and clinical outcomes between kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).

Objectives

Little biomechanical information is available about kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to simulate the kinematics and kinetics after KA TKA and mechanically aligned (MA) TKA with four different limb alignments.

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

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.