In Kinematically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty, Failure to Recreate Native Tibial Alignment Is Associated With Early Revision

Kinematic alignment adequately restores trochlear anatomy, patellar kinematics and kinetics in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Patellofemoral pain, maltracking and instability remain common and challenging complications after total knee arthroplasty. Controversy exists regarding the effect of kinematic alignment on the patellofemoral joint, as it generally leads to more femoral component valgus and internal rotation compared to mechanical alignment. The aim of this systematic review is to thoroughly examine the influence of kinematic alignment on the third space.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Pubmed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases was performed to screen for relevant articles published before 7 April 2024. This led to the final inclusion of 42 articles: 2 cadaveric, 9 radiographic, 12 computer simulation and 19 clinical studies. The risk of bias was evaluated with the risk of bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions tool as the lowest level of evidence of the included clinical studies was IV. The effects of kinematic alignment on patellar kinematics and kinetics, trochlear anatomy reconstruction and patellofemoral complication rate were investigated.

RESULTS

Kinematic alignment closely restores native patellar kinematics and kinetics, better reproduces native trochlear anatomy than mechanical alignment and leads to a 0%-11.4% incidence of patellofemoral complications. A more valgus joint line of the distal femur can cause lateral trochlear undercoverage and a trochlear angle orientation medial to the quadriceps vector when applying kinematic alignment, both of which can be solved by using an adjusted design with a 20.5° valgus trochlea.

CONCLUSION

Kinematic alignment appears to be a safe strategy for the patellofemoral joint in most knees, provided that certain precautions are taken to minimize the risk of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV clinical studies, in vitro research.

A Novel Technique for Restricted Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty Without Computer-Assisted Devices

Kinematic-alignment total knee arthroplasty (KA-TKA) aims to restore natural limb alignment and joint line obliquity, thereby improving patient satisfaction. Restricted KA-TKA (rKA-TKA) addresses abnormal knee anatomies and seeks to replicate natural anatomical structures within safe alignment boundaries. This study introduces a novel device and technique that enables rKA-TKA without computer-assisted surgery (CAS). The new device allows for precise cartilage thickness measurement and adjustment of osteotomy angles, facilitating accurate alignment. A heel-lift technique for tibial osteotomy is presented, offering a reproducible method for determining the osteotomy volume and angle. These innovations make KA and rKA-TKA feasible in any surgical setting, avoiding the high costs and limited availability associated with CAS.

Restricted kinematic alignment is clinically non-inferior to mechanical alignment in the short and mid-term: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, kinematic alignment (KA) is becoming a valid alternative to mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, to avoid early failures, the restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) approach has been developed to restore native knee kinematics without reproducing extreme knee phenotype. This systematic review aims to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes between rKA and MA for TKA.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The following search string was adopted: (((restricted kinematic) AND (mechanical)) AND (alignment)) AND (knee). We included studies that analyzed rKA versus MA in terms of clinical outcomes and complications with a minimum of 6 months of follow up. The following rKA- and MA-related data were evaluated: patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs), radiographic analysis of lower limb alignment, and complications. Criteria from the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies were used to assess the methodological quality of the articles.

RESULTS

This systematic review included seven clinical studies with a total of 892 knees (471 for MA group and 421 for rKA group, respectively). Overall, post-operative PROMs were similar between rKA and MA. Moreover, rKA reached better results regarding Forgotten Joint Score and post-operative patient satisfaction. Finally, no higher complication rate was observed with the rKA approach.

CONCLUSION

The rKA aims to restore native knee kinematics, avoiding extreme deformities. Clinical outcomes are not inferior or even better for rKA compared with MA, without increasing the risk of short-middle-term implant failure. However, there is a high heterogeneity regarding the 'restricted' protocols used.

Postoperative clinical outcomes for kinematically, restricted kinematically, or mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MATKA) is a well-established procedure. Kinematically aligned TKA (KATKA) has been proposed to restore and preserve pre-arthritic knee anatomy. However, normal knee anatomy varies widely, and there have been concerns regarding restoring unusual anatomy. Accordingly, restricted KATKA (rKATKA) was introduced to reproduce constitutional knee anatomy within a safe range. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of the surgeries.

METHODS

We performed a database search on August 20, 2022, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two of the three surgical TKA techniques for knee osteoarthritis. We conducted a random-effects NMA within the frequentist framework and evaluated confidence in each outcome using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 1,008 knees and a median follow-up period of 1.5 years were included. The three methods might result in little to no difference in range of motion (ROM) between methods. In patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the KATKA might result in a slight improvement compared with the MATKA (standardized mean difference, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.78; very low confidence). There was little to no difference in revision risk between MATKA and KATKA. KATKA and rKATKA showed a slight valgus femoral component (mean difference [MD], -1.35; 95% CI, -1.95-[-0.75]; very low confidence; and MD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.63-[-0.81]; very low confidence, respectively) and a slight varus tibial component (MD, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.22-3.24; very low confidence; and MD, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.01-2.49; very low confidence, respectively) compared with MATKA. Tibial component inclination and hip-knee-ankle angle might result in little to no difference between the three procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

KATKA and rKATKA showed similar ROM and PROMs and a slight variation in the coronal component alignment compared with MATKA. KATKA and rKATKA are acceptable methods in short- to mid-term follow-up periods. However, long-term clinical results in patients with severe varus deformity are still lacking. Surgeons should choose surgical procedures carefully. Further trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and subsequent revision risk.

Variation in knee balance as a function of hip-knee-ankle angle and joint line obliquity in robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To describe the mediolateral (ML) gap balance in pre-resection arthritic knees undergoing robot-assisted (RA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) within the nine phenotypes of the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification.

METHODS

A total of 1124 RA TKA cases were retrospectively reviewed. ML balance was calculated using a digital ligament tensioning device following tibial resection and prior to any femoral resection throughout flexion (10°, 40°, and 90°). Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were landmarked intra-operatively and adjusted for wear based on hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA). Knees were then subdivided into CPAK categories based on the arithmetic HKA (aHKA) and joint line obliquity (JLO). Differences in balance between CPAK phenotypes were compared.

RESULTS

For aHKA, a greater medial gap was observed in varus compared to neutral or valgus knees at 10° (5.2 ± 3.0 mm vs 3.3 ± 3.2 mm vs - 0.4 ± 5.0 mm respectively; p < 0.0001). A similar trend was observed for JLO in distal apex compared to neutral and proximal apex knees at 10° (3.4 ± 3.6 vs 1.1 ± 5.0 vs - 2.4 ± 6.3 respectively; p < 0.0001). The greatest ML balance differences were found when combining JLO and aHKA at 10° (type I vs type VI: ∆6.6 mm; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

There is a high degree of variability in arthritic ML balance within and between each CPAK phenotype. A single alignment philosophy based on bony landmarks alone may not be sufficient to balance all knees. Utilisation of robotics and digital ligament tensioning devices serves as important adjuncts to characterize the patient-specific soft tissue profile.