Aims

The mobile bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) is recommended to be performed with the leg in the hanging leg (HL) position, and the thigh placed in a stirrup. This comparative cadaveric study assesses implant positioning and intraoperative kinematics of OUKA implanted either in the HL position or in the supine leg (SL) position.

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 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. Methods. An analysis of 38 patients who underwent TKA and 32 who underwent bi-UKA was performed as a secondary study from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. CT imaging was used to measure coronal, sagittal, and axial alignment of the knee preoperatively and at three months postoperatively to determine changes in anatomy that had occurred as a result of the surgery. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) was also measured to identify any differences between the two groups. Results. The pre- to postoperative changes in joint anatomy were significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA in all three planes in both the femur and tibia, except for femoral sagittal component orientation in which there was no difference. Overall, for the six parameters of alignment (three femoral and three tibial), 47% of bi-UKAs and 24% TKAs had a change of < 2° (p = 0.045). The change in HKAA towards neutral in varus and valgus knees was significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA compared with those undergoing TKA (p < 0.001). Alignment was neutral in those undergoing TKA (mean 179.5° (SD 3.2°)) while those undergoing bi-UKA had mild residual varus or valgus alignment (mean 177.8° (SD 3.4°)) (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Robotic-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes better, and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared with a mechanically aligned TKA. This includes preservation of coronal joint line obliquity. HKAA alignment was corrected towards neutral significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA, which may represent restoration of the pre-disease constitutional alignment (p < 0.001). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1511–1518

Aims. The removal of the cruciate ligaments in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been suggested as a potential contributing factor to patient dissatisfaction, due to alteration of the in vivo biomechanics of the knee. Bicruciate retaining (BCR) TKA allows the preservation of the cruciate ligaments, thus offering the potential to reproduce healthy kinematics. The aim of this study was to compare in vivo kinematics between the operated and contralateral knee in patients who have undergone TKA with a contemporary BCR design. Methods. A total of 29 patients who underwent unilateral BCR TKA were evaluated during single-leg deep lunges and sit-to-stand tests using a validated computer tomography and fluoroscopic imaging system. In vivo six-degrees of freedom (6DOF) kinematics were compared between the BCR TKA and the contralateral knee. Results. During single-leg deep lunge, BCR TKAs showed significantly less mean posterior femoral translation (13 mm; standard deviation (SD) 4) during terminal flexion, compared with the contralateral knee (16.6 mm, SD 3.7; p = 0.001). Similarly, BCR TKAs showed significantly less mean femoral rollback (11.6 mm (SD 4.5) vs 14.4 mm (SD 4.6); p < 0.043) during sit-to-stand. BCR TKAs showed significantly reduced internal rotation during many parts of the strenuous flexion activities particularly during high-flexion lunge (4° (SD 5.6°) vs 6.5° (SD 6.1°); p = 0.051) and during sit-to-stand (4.5° (SD 6°) vs 6.9° (SD 6.3°); p = 0.048). Conclusion. The contemporary design of BCR TKA showed asymmetrical flexion-extension and internal-external rotation, suggesting that the kinematics are not entirely reproduced during strenuous activities. Future studies are required to establish the importance of patient factors, component orientation and design, in optimizing kinematics in patients who undergo BCR TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):59–65

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare a bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA design in terms of kinematics, measured using fluoroscopy and stability as micromotion using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Aims

The extensive variation in axial rotation of tibial components can lead to coronal plane malalignment. We analyzed the change in coronal alignment induced by tray malrotation.

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.

We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with conventional surgery (CONV) in total knee replacement (TKR). Between 2009 and 2011 a total of 192 patients with a mean age of 68 years (55 to 85) with osteoarthritis or arthritic disease of the knee were recruited from four Norwegian hospitals. At three months follow-up, functional results were marginally better for the CAS group. Mean differences (MD) in favour of CAS were found for the Knee Society function score (MD: 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 11.4, p = 0.039), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for ‘pain’ (MD: 7.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 13.6, p = 0.012), ‘sports’ (MD: 13.5, 95% CI 5.6 to 21.4, p = 0.001) and ‘quality of life’ (MD: 7.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 14.3, p = 0.046). At one-year follow-up, differences favouring CAS were found for KOOS ‘sports’ (MD: 11.0, 95% CI 3.0 to 19.0, p = 0.007) and KOOS ‘symptoms’ (MD: 6.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 13.0, p = 0.035). The use of CAS resulted in fewer outliers in frontal alignment (> 3° malalignment), both for the entire TKR (37.9% vs 17.9%, p = 0.042) and for the tibial component separately (28.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.002). Tibial slope was better achieved with CAS (58.9% vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Operation time was 20 minutes longer with CAS. In conclusion, functional results were, statistically, marginally in favour of CAS. Also, CAS was more predictable than CONV for mechanical alignment and positioning of the prosthesis. However, the long-term outcomes must be further investigated.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:609–18.

Ensuring correct rotation of the femoral component is a challenging aspect of patellofemoral replacement surgery. Rotation equal to the epicondylar axis or marginally more external rotation is acceptable. Internal rotation is associated with poor outcomes. This paper comprises two studies evaluating the use of the medial malleolus as a landmark to guide rotation.

We used 100 lower-leg anteroposterior radiographs to evaluate the reliability of the medial malleolus as a landmark. Assessment was made of the angle between the tibial shaft and a line from the intramedullary rod entry site to the medial malleolus. The femoral cut was made in ten cadaver knees using the inferior tip of the medial malleolus as a landmark for rotation. Rotation of the cut relative to the anatomical epicondylar axis was assessed using CT. The study of radiographs found the position of the medial malleolus relative to the tibial axis is consistent. Using the inferior tip of the medial malleolus in the cadaver study produced a mean external rotation of 1.6° (0.1° to 3.7°) from the anatomical epicondylar axis. Using the inferior tip of the medial malleolus to guide the femoral cutting jig avoids internal rotation and introduces an acceptable amount of external rotation of the femoral component.

The aim of this prospective single-centre study was to assess the difference in clinical outcome between total knee replacement (TKR) using computerised navigation and that of conventional TKR. We hypothesised that navigation would give a better result at every stage within the first five years. A total of 195 patients (195 knees) with a mean age of 70.0 years (39 to 89) were allocated alternately into two treatment groups, which used either conventional instrumentation (group A, 97 knees) or a navigation system (group B, 98 knees). After five years, complete clinical scores were available for 121 patients (62%). A total of 18 patients were lost to follow-up. Compared with conventional surgery, navigated TKR resulted in a better mean Knee Society score (p = 0.008). The difference in mean Knee Society scores over time between the two groups was not constant (p = 0.006), which suggests that these groups differed in their response to surgery with time. No significant difference in the frequency of malalignment was seen between the two groups.

In summary, computerised navigation resulted in a better functional outcome at five years than conventional techniques. Given the similarity in mechanical alignment between the two groups, rotational alignment may prove to be a better method of identifying differences in clinical outcome after navigated surgery.

We compared the results of 146 patients who received an anatomic modular knee fixed-bearing total knee replacement (TKR) in one knee and a low contact stress rotating platform mobile-bearing TKR in the other. There were 138 women and eight men with a mean age of 69.8 years (42 to 80). The mean follow-up was 13.2 years (11.0 to 14.5). The patients were assessed clinically and radiologically using the rating systems of the Hospital for Special Surgery and the Knee Society at three months, six months, one year, and annually thereafter.

The assessment scores of both rating systems pre-operatively and at the final review did not show any statistically significant differences between the two designs of implant. In the anatomic modular knee group, one knee was revised because of aseptic loosening of the tibial component and one because of infection. In addition, three knees were revised because of wear of the polyethylene tibial bearing. In the low contact stress group, two knees were revised because of instability requiring exchange of the polyethylene insert and one because of infection.

The radiological analysis found no statistical difference in the incidence of radiolucent lines at the final review (Student’s t-test, p = 0.08), most of which occurred at tibial zone 1. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for aseptic loosening of the anatomic modular knee and the low contact stress implants at 14.5 years was 99% and 100%, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval of 94% to 100% for both designs.

We found no evidence of the superiority of one design over the other at long-term follow-up.

We prospectively assessed the benefits of using either a range-of-movement technique or an anatomical landmark method to determine the rotational alignment of the tibial component during total knee replacement. We analysed the cut proximal tibia intraoperatively, determining anteroposterior axes by the range-of-movement technique and comparing them with the anatomical anteroposterior axis.

We found that the range-of-movement technique tended to leave the tibial component more internally rotated than when anatomical landmarks were used. In addition, it gave widely variable results (mean 7.5°; 2° to 17°), determined to some extent by which posterior reference point was used. Because of the wide variability and the possibilities for error, we consider that it is inappropriate to use the range-of-movement technique as the sole method of determining alignment of the tibial component during total knee replacement.