Knee alignment in the transverse plane during weight-bearing activity and its implication for the tibial rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty

Comparison of Tibial Tubercle Landmark Technique and Range of Motion Technique in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

There is not a standard for rotational alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). For now, the most commonly methods are tibial-tubercle -landmark technique (TTL) and range-of-motion technique (ROM). The study is aimed to compare clinical outcomes and radiographic data of patients who undergone primary TKA with TTL or ROM technique.

METHODS

This single-surgeon retrospective cohort study includes 60 patients with TTL technique and 60 with ROM technique from December 2017 to January 2019. All patients were evaluated clinically using Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSS), Feller patellar score, visual analogue scale (VAS) and maximum knee flexion and extension angle before and after surgery at both 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Radiographic data contain hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), posterior slope angle (PSA) on pre and postoperative X-ray and rotation angle of femoral component (relative to surgical trans-epicondylar axis) and tibial component (relative to surgical trans-epicondylar axis, tibial posterior condylar line and Akagi') on postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan. Clinical outcomes and radiological data were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients (120 knees) were enrolled in this study, including 38 males and 82 females, aged from 58 to 78, with an average of 65.7 years. There was no significant difference in demographics and preoperative X-ray data between the two groups (P > 0. 05). Clinical scores of the TTL group were better than those in the ROM group at 6 and 12 months after surgery, when comparing HSS (83.57 ± 5.00 vs 75.90 ± 4.89, F = 59.004, P < 0.001; 90.53 ± 4.31 vs 82.83 ± 4.98, F = 54.509, P < 0.001), Feller patellar score (21.43 ± 2.54 vs 19.10 ± 2.52, F = 14.864, P = 0.001; 26.27 ± 1.98 vs 23.20 ± 2.31, F = 42.204, P < 0.001) and VAS (3.70 ± 0.62 vs 4.38 ± 0.92, F = 14.508, P = 0.001; 2.10 ± 0.90 vs 2.79 ± 0.80, F = 11.554, P = 0.002). But there was no significant difference in the flexion and extension angle between the two groups. In imaging evaluation, no statistical difference was found in pre- and postoperative HKA, mLDFA, mMPTA and PSA. Rotational angles of tibial component only did relative to Akagi' have statistical difference in two groups (2.33 ± 4.3 vs 4.41 ± 3.2, t = 2.143, P < 0.05) (Positive value represented external rotation).

CONCLUSION

The results of our study showed that both methods were reliable, and TTL technique provided better clinical scores and larger external angle of tibial component, compared to ROM technique.

[Progress in the method of tibial prosthesis rotation alignment in total knee arthroplasty]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the methods of tibial prosthesis rotation alignment in total knee arthroplasty, and provide reference for clinicians to select and further study the methods of tibial prosthesis rotation alignment.

METHODS

The advantages and disadvantages of various tibial prosthesis rotation alignment methods were analyzed and summarized by referring to the relevant literature at home and abroad in recent years.

RESULTS

There are many methods for tibial prosthesis rotation alignment, including reference to relevant anatomical landmarks, range of motion (ROM) technique, computer-assisted navigation, and personalized osteotomy. The inner one-third of the tibial tuberosity is a more accurate reference anatomical landmark, but the obesity, severe knee deformity and dysplasia have impacts on the precise placement of the tibial prosthesis. ROM technique do not need to refer to the anatomical landmark of the tibia, and aren't affected by landmark variation. It can be used for severe knee valgus deformity and the landmarks that are difficult to identify. However, it may cause internal rotation of tibial prosthesis. Computer- assisted navigation and personalized osteotomy can achieve more accurate alignment in sagittal, coronal, and rotational alignment of femoral prosthesis. However, due to the lack of reliable anatomical landmarkers related to tibia fixation, it is still controversial whether it can help the alignment of tibial prosthesis rotation.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon should master the methods of rotation and alignment of tibial prosthesis, make preoperative plans, select appropriate alignment methods for different patients, and achieve individualization. Meanwhile, several anatomical landmarkers should be referred to properly during the operation, which can be used to detect the correct placement of tibial prosthesis and avoid large rotation error.

A proposed new rotating reference axis for the tibial component after proximal tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty

Purpose

During total knee arthroplasty, few rotating reference axes can be reliably used after tibial resection. We speculated that a line that passes through the lateral edge of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) at its tibial attachment after resection and the most prominent point of the tibial tubercle [after-tibial resection (ATR) line] will provide a good reference axis. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between ATR and Akagi’s lines.

Materials and methods

In this case–control simulation study, we retrospectively evaluated 38 patients with varus knee and 28 patients with valgus knee. We defined the reference cutting plane as 10 mm distal from the lateral articular surface of the tibia in varus group and as 7 mm distal from the medial articular surface in the valgus group. We measured angles between Akagi’s line and the ATR line (ATR line angle) as well as between Akagi’s line and 1/3 Akagi’s line (1/3 Akagi’s line angle), which passes through the midpoint of PCL and the medial third of the patellar tendon. We used paired t-tests to determine the significance of differences between these angles, with p < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Intra- and interclass correlation coefficients for the reproducibility of 1/3 Akagi’s line angle and ATR line angle were analyzed by two surgeons.

Results

We found that 1/3 Akagi’s line angle was 10.2° ± 1.3° in the varus group and 10.9° ± 1.3° in the valgus group (p = 0.017). The ATR line was positioned externally compared with Akagi’s line in all patients. Mean ATR line angles at 0°, 3° and 7° posterior slopes were 6.1° ± 1.9°, 5.8° ± 2.0° and 6.0° ± 1.7° in the varus group and 6.3° ± 2.3°, 6.2° ± 2.3° and 5.4° ± 2.1° in the valgus group, respectively. There were no significant differences in the ATR line angle between the varus and valgus groups. (p = 0.34–0.67) Intra- and interclass correlation coefficients for the reproducibility of 1/3 Akagi’s line angle were 0.936 and 0.986 and those for the reproducibility of ATR line angle were 0.811 and 0.839.

Conclusions

The ATR line was positioned between Akagi’s line and 1/3 Akagi’s line in all patients and was a valid option for evaluating rotational tibial alignment after tibial resection.

Tibial component rotation in total knee arthroplasty

Background

Both the range of motion (ROM) technique and the tibial tubercle landmark (TTL) technique are frequently used to align the tibial component into proper rotational position during total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

The aim of the study was to assess the intra-operative differences in tibial rotation position during computer-navigated primary TKA using either the TTL or ROM techniques. The ROM technique was hypothesized to be a repeatable method and to produce different tibial rotation positions compared to the TTL technique.

Methods

A prospective, observational study was performed to evaluate the antero-posterior axis of the cut proximal tibia using both the ROM and the TTL technique during primary TKA without postoperative clinical assessment. Computer navigation was used to measure this difference in 20 consecutive knees of 20 patients who underwent a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty with a fixed-bearing polyethylene insert and a patella resurfacing.

Results

The ROM technique is a repeatable method with an interclass correlation coefficient (ICC2) of 0.84 (p < 0.001). The trial tibial baseplate was on average 4.56 degrees externally rotated compared to the tubercle landmark. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.028). The amount of maximum intra-operative flexion and the pre-operative mechanical axis were positively correlated with the magnitude of difference between the two methods.

Conclusions

It is important for the orthopaedic surgeon to realise that there is a significant difference between the TTL technique and ROM technique when positioning the tibial component in a rotational position. This difference is correlated with high maximum flexion and mechanical axis deviations.