Kinematic alignment results in clinically similar outcomes to mechanical alignment: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Sparse and inconsistent reporting of pre- and post-operative radiographic angles of total knee arthroplasty using true unrestricted kinematic alignment: An umbrella review and secondary meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on pre- and post-operative radiographic angles (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and hip-knee-ankle [HKA] angle) of unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Two authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, that reported on TKA outcomes using unrestricted kinematic alignment. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses was independently assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). The effect size with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for radiographic angles was extracted from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The characteristics of clinical studies included in systematic reviews were listed and tabulated. Pre- and post-operative MPTA, LDFA and HKA angles were summarised using meta-analytic random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nineteen records were eligible for data extraction. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses included 44 clinical studies, of which 31 were on unrestricted kinematic alignment and 13 were on restricted versions of kinematic alignment. None of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses fulfiled all seven critical AMSTAR-2 domains. Few comparative studies reported both pre- and post-operative angles (LDFA, n = 3; MPTA, n = 4; and HKA angle, n = 10). Mean pre- and post-operative LDFAs were 88.0° (range, 83-94°) and 88.0° (range, 80-96°) for the kinematic alignment group, and 88.2° (range, 83-95°) and 90.2° (range, 84-97°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative MPTAs were 86.0° (range, 78-93°) and 87.1° (range, 78-94°) for the kinematic alignment group and 86.4° (range, 77-94°) and 89.6° (range, 84-95°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative HKA angles were -3.3° (range, -24° to 24°) and -0.3° (range, -10° to 8°) for the kinematic alignment group and -6.9° (range, -25° to 7°) and -0.9° (range, -8° to 7°) for the mechanical alignment group.

CONCLUSION

Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses that report outcomes of TKA using kinematic alignment do not distinguish between the different versions of kinematic alignment. The clinical studies included in systematic reviews are limited and inconsistent in their reporting of radiographic angles. Different alignment strategies are often grouped under the umbrella term of kinematic alignment, which contributes to conflicting reports, confusion and unresolved questions regarding the efficacy of true unrestricted kinematic alignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The Effects of Biomechanical Loading on the Tibial Insert After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Background/Objectives: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the gold-standard treatment for advanced knee arthritis, offering pain relief and improved joint function. However, tibial component malalignment, malrotation, and improper biomechanical loading remain critical factors contributing to implant failure, instability, and revision surgeries. This review systematically examines the impact of biomechanical loading on the tibial insert following primary TKA, with a focus on alignment, posterior tibial slope (PTS), and load distribution. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies investigating the effects of tibial component alignment, varus/valgus deviations, PTS, and load distribution on tibial inserts post-TKA were included. Seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed and described narratively. Results: The reviewed studies highlighted that varus and valgus malalignment significantly alter tibiofemoral contact pressures and ligament strains, increasing the risk of aseptic loosening and implant failure. Excessive PTS was associated with posterior femoral translation, altered ligament tension, and increased contact stresses on polyethylene (PE) inserts. Kinematically aligned TKA demonstrated reduced tibial force imbalances and improved functional outcomes compared to mechanically aligned TKA. Computational and cadaveric studies revealed that even minor malalignments (e.g., 3° varus or valgus) can cause significant biomechanical changes. Conclusions: Biomechanical loading on tibial inserts after primary TKA is highly sensitive to the alignment and PTS. Optimal alignment and controlled biomechanical forces are essential. Kinematically aligned TKA has shown promising effects, preventing aseptic loosening and ensuring long-term implant survival. Further in vivo studies are needed to validate these findings and optimize surgical techniques.

Excellent results of restricted kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up

PURPOSE

While restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with cemented implants has been shown to provide a similar survivorship rate to mechanical alignment (MA) in the short term, no studies have reported on the long-term survivorship and function.

METHODS

One hundred four consecutive cemented cruciate retaining TKAs implanted using computer navigation and following the rKA principles proposed by Vendittoli were reviewed at a minimum of 10 years after surgery. Implant revisions, reoperations and clinical outcomes were assessed using knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), forgotten joint score (FJS), patients' satisfaction and joint perception questionnaires. Radiographs were analyzed to identify signs of osteolysis and implant loosening.

RESULTS

Implant survivorship was 99.0% at a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (range: 10.3-12.9) with one early revision for instability. Patients perceived their TKA as natural or artificial without limitation in 50.0% of cases, and 95.3% were satisfied or very satisfied with their TKA. The mean FJS was 67.6 (range: 0-100). The mean KOOS were as follows: pain 84.7 (range: 38-100), symptoms 85.5 (range: 46-100), function in daily activities 82.6 (range: 40-100), function in sport and recreation 35.2 (range: 0-100) and quality of life 79.1 (range: 0-100). No radiological evidence of implant aseptic loosening or osteolysis was identified.

CONCLUSION

Cemented TKA implanted with the rKA alignment protocol demonstrated excellent long-term implant survivorship and is a safe alternative to MA to improve patient function and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, continuous case series with no comparison group.

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.

Kinematic Alignment Does Not Result in Clinically Important Improvements After TKA Compared With Mechanical Alignment: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

There is debate as to whether kinematic TKA or mechanical alignment TKA is superior. Recent systematic reviews have suggested that kinematically aligned TKAs may be the preferred option. However, the observed differences in alignment favoring kinematic alignment may not improve outcomes (performance or durability) in ways that patients can perceive, and likewise, statistical differences in outcome scores sometimes observed in clinical trials may be too small for patients to notice. Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) are changes that are deemed meaningful to the patient. A meta-analysis of randomized trials that frames results on this topic in terms of MCIDs may therefore be informative to surgeons and their patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does kinematic alignment for TKA insertion improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by clinically important margins (for example, 5 points of 48 on the adjusted Oxford Knee Score [OKS] or 13.7 points of 100 on the Forgotten Joint Score [FJS]) compared with mechanical alignment? (2) Does kinematic alignment for TKA insertion improve ROM by a clinically important margin (defined as 3.8° to 6.4° in flexion) compared with mechanical alignment?

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline and Embase databases was performed from inception to January 29, 2023, the date of search. We identified RCTs comparing mechanical alignment TKA with kinematic alignment TKA. All English-language RCTs comparing PROMs data in kinematic versus mechanical alignment TKAs performed in patients 18 years or older were included. Studies that were not in English, involved overlapping reports of the same trial, and/or utilized nonrandomized controlled trial methodology were excluded. Conference abstracts or study protocols, pilot studies, and review articles were also excluded. Two reviewers screened abstracts, full-text, and extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2. Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, which included 1033 patients with a mean age of 68 years (range 40 to 94) from eight countries who were undergoing primary TKA. Six studies were determined to be low risk of bias, with the remaining six studies were determined to be of moderate-to-high risk of bias. As a result, we would expect that the included studies might overestimate the benefit of the newer approach. Outcomes included ROM and PROMs. Where feasible, pooled analysis was completed. PROMs data were extracted from nine pooled studies, with a randomized n = 443 in the kinematic alignment group and n = 435 in the mechanical alignment group. ROM data were extracted from six pooled studies, with randomized n = 248 in the kinematic alignment group and n = 243 in the mechanical alignment group. PROMS were converted to common scales where possible. Multiple versions of the OKS exist; therefore, OKS scores were converted if needed to a 0 to 48 Oxford scale, in which higher scores represent better clinical outcomes. WOMAC scores were converted to OKS using previously reported techniques. The OKS and converted WOMAC scores were represented as "functional scores" in our data set because of their conversion. An MCID of 5 was utilized as previously documented for the OKS. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and for an I2 of > 25%, random-effects models were utilized.

RESULTS

In nine pooled studies, we found no clinically important difference between the kinematic and mechanical alignment groups in terms of our generated functional score (mean difference 3 of possible 48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 4.54]; p = 0.005). The functional score included OKS and WOMAC scores converted to OKS. The difference did not exceed the MCID for the OKS. In three pooled studies, we found no difference between the kinematic and mechanical alignment groups in terms of FJS at 1 to 2 years (mean difference 4 of possible 200 [95% CI -1.77 to 9.08]; p = 0.19). In three pooled studies, we found no difference between the kinematic and mechanical alignment groups in terms of EuroQol 5-domain instrument VAS score at 1 to 2 years (mean difference 0.2 of possible 100 [95% CI -3.17 to 3.61]; p = 0.90). We found no clinically meaningful difference between kinematic TKA and mechanical alignment TKA for ROM (extension mean difference 0.1° [95% CI -1.08 to 1.34]; p = 0.83, and flexion mean difference 3° [95% CI 0.5 to 5.61]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found no clinically important benefit favoring kinematic over mechanical alignment in TKA based on the available RCTs. Because patients cannot perceive advantages to kinematic alignment, and because it adds costs, time (if using advanced technologies), and potential risks to the patient that are associated with novelty, it should not be widely adopted in practice until or unless such advantages have been shown in well-designed RCTs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Novel technique for achieving the under-correction of native tibial varus in calipered restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty - A validation study

Purpose

Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) TKA is relatively newer technique for achieving an overall under-corrected limb alignment. The present study aims to provide an easy and reproducible technique for achieving calipered rKA-TKA (crKA-TKA) using routine instrumentation.

Method

A prospective study was conducted including 30 patients (30 knees). All patients underwent crKA-TKA by the same surgeon. Pre-operatively all patients underwent long film standing radiographs, and coronal angles were measured to plan tibial bony cuts and the femoral axis angle (FAA) to restore tibial varus under correction and native distal femoral anatomy, respectively. Intra-operatively while taking tibial cuts, the alignment rod was noted to be always pointing towards the "third metatarsal" of the ipsilateral foot.

Results

30 patients underwent total knee replacement with crKA technique. Angular corrections were satisfactory with all patients reaching the target MPTA of 87.48 ± 0.78 and LDFA of 90.301 ± 2.66 as planned, with an overall under-corrected limb alignment. HKA was achieved within a target of < ± 3 degrees of the native knee (3.56 ± 1.29). Post-operative radiological parameters were checked by two separate observers with excellent intra-class correlation coefficients.

Conclusion

The present study validates a novel intra-operative technique of confirming an under-corrected native tibial varus while performing crKA-TKA. The radiological outcomes of the study confirm that with careful pre-operative planning, coronal angular targets were easily achievable with very less outliers. Study further establishes that this method of calipered technique in rKA-TKA using routine digital templating software and standard instrumentations is an alternative method of executing rKA.

Level of evidence

IV, Prospective case series.

The Restoration of the Prearthritic Joint Line Does Not Guarantee the Natural Knee Kinematics: A Gait Analysis Evaluation Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background

Unrestricted kinematic alignment (uKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has the theoretical advantage of reproducing patients' constitutional alignment and restoring the pre-arthritic joint line position and obliquity. However, modifications of the original uKA technique have been proposed due to the potential risk of mechanical failure and instability. Given the significant variability in soft tissue behavior within the same bony morphology group, uKA pure knee resurfacing could be occasionally detrimental. This study aimed to kinematically compare the outcomes of uKA TKA with those of a robotic-assisted KA TKA technique based on specific soft-tissue boundaries.

Methods

In this retrospective gait analysis study, 24 TKA patients and 12 healthy controls were recruited. Inclusion criteria were a 9-month minimum follow-up from successfully, primary medial-pivot or medially-congruent TKA performed for isolated degenerative joint disease. Preoperatively, patients were randomly assigned to two surgical groups: A) uKA (#12) and B) robot-assisted (#12), KA (hybrid-kinematic) with boundaries (±3° from hip-knee-ankle neutral axis) and a slight intercompartmental gap asymmetry (max 2 mm lateral-opening). The gait analysis was performed using instrumented treadmills equipped with 3D cameras.

Results

Sagittal knee kinematic data: during the early-stance phase of gait, the uKA group showed a less consistent weight-acceptance phase and a less efficient transition between the first knee-flexion peak and mid-stance-extension plateau with respect to the hybrid-kinematic alignment group. Spatiotemporal and overall gait quality data: no significant differences were found between the two TKA groups regarding walking speed (P = .51) and step length (P = .8534). Control group patients walked more efficiently compared to TKA groups, showing inferior trunk flexion and inferior variation in step length (P < .0001).

Conclusions

This study showed that restoring the pre-arthritic joint line, as advocated by surgeons following the uKA philosophy, does not guarantee a closer-to-normal knee kinematics.

Effect of tibiofemoral alignment on simulated knee contact forces during gait in mechanically and kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty patients

The goal of the study was to apply a musculoskeletal knee model that considers individual tibiofemoral alignment (TFA) and to investigate its effect on knee contact force (KCF) during gait in mechanically (MA) and kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. Total, medial, and lateral KCF was estimated from pre- and postoperative gait data of TKA patients (MA: n = 26, KA: n = 22). Preoperative KCF was compared between the generic and the adapted model using t-tests and statistical parametric mapping (SPM). The TFA-adapted model was then used to analyze pre- to postoperative differences in MA and KA patients. The factor of TFA increased estimates of KCF during the stance phase and led to higher peak contact forces (3-5%, p < 0.05). SPM analyses of pre- to postoperative KCF revealed no significant differences across the gait cycle, however, postoperative peak KCF was significantly increased in both groups (10-18%, p < 0.05). No group differences were observed when comparing KCF between MA and KA patients. Integrating TFA into the model led to higher estimations of KCF. Applying the adapted model, pre- to postoperative differences in KCF were the same for both TKA groups suggesting that both alignment techniques had comparable effects on knee loading post-TKA.

Kinematic versus mechanical alignment: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to review the currently available systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA).

Methods

A literature search was performed to obtain all systematic review and meta-analyses comparing KA to MA that included one or more randomised controlled trials. A total of 18 studies were obtained, three of which were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Studies were evaluated based on their meta-analysis methodology, appropriate inclusion criteria, the use of correct definitions of each alignment technique, and risk of bias.

Results

These 18 studies included between 3 and 14 RCTs in each study. From the perspective of study design, the majority of papers had low risk of bias. In contrast, most of these reviews had technical issues pertaining to study inclusion in their meta-analyses that would potentially compromise their conclusions. These included mixing time points in the analysis, duplicate inclusion of patients in a meta-analysis, inclusion of studies with incorrect definitions of KA, inclusion of studies performed with restricted kinematic alignment with the KA group, and inappropriate combination of studies with bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with studies with unilateral TKA.

Conclusions

The current literature is inadequate to determine if there is any advantage to KA compared to MA in TKA. Claims made in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the subject must be carefully scrutinised based not only on risk of bias but also on the included study populations, the surgical methodology of each underlying study, and the authors' understanding of the definitions of each alignment technique.

Level of Evidence

Level 1 based on this study being a systematic review with the inclusion of only systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Defining Distinct Stress Curve Morphologies for Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Phenotypes Using an Imageless Navigation Robotic Platform in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification system divides coronal knee anatomy into 9 phenotypes, suggesting different soft tissue balancing is needed for optimal outcomes. We investigated the interplay between CPAK phenotypes and gap stress curves throughout the knee's range of motion, aiming to understand their impact on total knee arthroplasty balancing.

METHODS

There were 1,112 total knee arthroplasty cases from 2 imageless robotic assisted navigation systems using posterior stabilized implants that were classified into CPAK phenotypes. Medial and lateral initial gap values were measured throughout the knee flexion-extension arc, gap curve morphologies were generated, and mediolateral (ML) gap balance was calculated for each phenotype. The most common phenotypes were included in this study, CPAK I to VI.

RESULTS

Each phenotype exhibited a distinct gap curve morphology. Type I maintained the largest ML gap difference (-3.6 to -2.1), with the medial compartment tightest in extension. Type II showed relative laxity in the lateral compartment compared to the medial gap (-1.0 to -1.9), with the medial compartment tightening through flexion. Type III had a looser medial and tighter lateral compartment in extension that inverts to a tighter medial compartment in deep flexion (2.1 to -0.8), while Type IV showed a decreasing compartment difference with increased flexion (-3.7 to 0.6). Type V had fluctuating tightness (-0.6 to 1.8), and Type VI had the medial compartment tightening more with flexion (0.6 to 1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The distinct stress curves and ML gap behavior provide a "fingerprint" for each corresponding CPAK phenotype. Investigating these morphologies can help determine the best phenotype-specific treatments, including alignment strategy, implant selection, and gap balance, for optimal functional and patient outcomes.

Pre- and postoperative Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee classification and its impact on clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty

Aims

The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification has been developed to predict individual variations in inherent knee alignment. The impact of preoperative and postoperative CPAK classification phenotype on the postoperative clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains elusive. This study aimed to examine the effect of postoperative CPAK classification phenotypes (I to IX), and their pre- to postoperative changes on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

A questionnaire was administered to 340 patients (422 knees) who underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis (OA) between September 2013 and June 2019. A total of 231 patients (284 knees) responded. The -Knee Society Score 2011 (KSS 2011), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-12 (KOOS-12), and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) were used to assess clinical outcomes. Using preoperative and postoperative anteroposterior full-leg radiographs, the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) and joint line obliquity (JLO) were calculated and classified based on the CPAK classification. To investigate the impact on PROMs, multivariable regression analyses using stepwise selection were conducted, considering factors such as age at surgery, time since surgery, BMI, sex, implant use, postoperative aHKA classification, JLO classification, and changes in aHKA and JLO classifications from preoperative to postoperative.

Results

The preoperative and postoperative CPAK classifications were predominantly phenotype I (155 knees; 55%) and phenotype V (73 knees; 26%), respectively. The change in the preoperative to postoperative aHKA classification was a significant negative predictive factor for KOOS-12 and FJS-12, while postoperative apex proximal JLO was a significant negative predictive factor for KSS 2011 and KOOS-12.

Conclusion

In primary TKA for OA, preoperative and postoperative CPAK phenotypes were associated with PROMs. Alteration in varus/valgus alignment from preoperative to postoperative was recognized as a negative predictive factor for both KOOS-12 and FJS-12. Moreover, the postoperative apex proximal JLO was identified as a negative factor for KSS 2011 and KOOS-12. Determining the target alignment for each preoperative phenotype with reproducibility could improve PROMs.

The Viability and Success of Noncemented Kinematic Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of noncemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing as personalized knee alignment strategies deviate from implanting components on a strict mechanical axis. This retrospective study evaluated the outcomes of 74 consecutive noncemented unrestricted kinematic TKA procedures.

METHODS

This study included 74 consecutive noncemented kinematic TKAs performed by one surgeon at a tertiary academic medical center from 2021 to 2023. The technique used was unrestricted femur-first caliper kinematic TKA. The outcomes included revision, pain scores, and radiographic measurements.

RESULTS

Of the 74 procedures performed, there were no revisions or readmissions for problems related to TKA. The mean follow-up was 17.6 months, with 74% of patients being followed up for more than 1 year postoperatively. On the day of surgery, postoperative measurements showed that the average tibial mechanical, distal femoral, and anatomic tibiofemoral angles were 3.3°, 7.7°, and 5.8°, respectively. 5 knees were observed initially with signs of radiolucency, which all resolved by the most recent appointment. None of the knees was radiographically loose. Of the patients, 65%, 19%, and 16% reported no pain, minimal pain, and some pain, respectively, at the 6-week follow-up visit. This improved to 78%, 19%, and 3% at the most recent follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Combining kinematic alignment with noncemented fixation showed excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes with short-term survivorship. Although the use of both kinematic alignment and noncemented TKAs has been controversial, these early data suggest that noncemented kinematic TKA is safe and effective.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcomes and innovations in Total Knee Arthroplasty: KINEMATIC, PERSONALIZED KNEE vs. CONVENTIONAL

Background

Kinematic alignment is an emerging approach for total knee arthroplasty, with the aim to restore patient's individual pre-arthritic joint kinematics. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the kinematic alignment with the conventional mechanical alignment for total knee arthroplasty.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus on June 2, 2024. We screened the retrieved studies for eligibility. Then extracted the data from the included studies, and then pooled the data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using Review Manager Software (ver. 3.5).

Results

There was no significant difference between KA and MA in the different reported scores: combined KSS score at 6 months (P = 0.23) and 1 years (P = 0.60), KSS Patient satisfaction (P = 0.33), KSS function score (P = 0.07), Oxford score at 6 months (P = 0.45) and 2 years (P = 0.41), KOOS score (P = 0.26). Moreover, there was statistically significant difference in range of motion for flexion and extension at 1 and 2 years, incision length, the length of hospital stay, or the duration of surgery.

Conclusion

Although kinematic alignment showed slightly better clinical outcomes than mechanical alignment, the difference between the two techniques is not statistically significant.

Comparison of short-term clinical results between modified kinematically-aligned and guided motion bicruciate stabilized total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Both kinematically-aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and bicruciate stabilized (BCS) TKA aim to reproduce the physiological knee kinematics. In this study, we compared the femoro-tibial component rotational mismatch between patients who underwent modified KA-TKA and those who received guided-motion BCS-TKA, and its influence on the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 77 consecutive patients were included and divided into two groups: subjects who underwent modified KA-TKA with Persona (KA Group; n = 42) and those who received BCS-TKA with JOURNEY II (BCS group; n = 35). Range of motion, the 2011 Knee Society Score (KSS), the rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components, and the correlations between the rotational mismatch and the 2011 KSS subscales were examined.

RESULTS

The postoperative objective knee indicators (P = 0.0157), patient satisfaction (P = 0.0039) and functional activity scores (P = 0.0013) in the KA group were significantly superior to those in the BCS group 1 year postoperatively. There was no significant difference between the two groups observed in the rotational mismatch. In the BCS group, significant negative correlations were identified between the rotational mismatch and objective indicators, patient satisfaction, and functional activity scores but not in the KA group.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term clinical results following KA-TKA showed superior objective knee indicators, patient satisfaction and functional activity scores. A negative correlation was observed between component rotational mismatch and the 2011 KSS subscales in the BCS group, compared to no relationship found between the two in the KA group. These findings suggested that KA-TKA has a relatively higher tolerance for rotational mismatch than BCS-TKA.

Identifying subgroups of patients that may benefit from robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: Secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aims were to assess whether a specific subgroup(s) of patients had a clinically significant benefit in their knee specific outcome or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) when undergoing robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) when compared to manually performed TKA (mTKA).

METHODS

One hundred patients were randomised to either rTKA or mTKA, 50 to each group, of which 46 and 41 were available for functional review at 6-months, respectively. Subgroup analysis was undertaken for sex, age (<67-years versus ≥ 67-years), preoperative WOMAC score (<40 versus ≥ 40) and EQ-5D utility (<0.604 versus ≥ 0.604).

RESULTS

Male patients undergoing rTKA had a clinically and statistically significant greater improvement in WOMAC pain (mean difference (MD) 16.3, p = 0.011) at 2-months, function (MD 12.6, p = 0.032) and total score (MD 12.7, p = 0.030), and OKS (MD 6.0, p = 0.030) at 6-months. Patients < 67-years old undergoing rTKA had a clinically and statistically significant greater improvement in WOMAC pain (MD 10.3, p = 0.039) at 2-months, and function (MD 12.9, p = 0.040) and total (MD 13.1, p = 0.038) scores at 6-months. Patients with a preoperative WOMAC total score of < 40 points undergoing rTKA had a clinically and statistically significant greater improvement in WOMAC pain (MD 14.6, p = 0.044) at 6-months. Patients with a preoperative EQ-5D utility of <0.604 undergoing rTKA had a clinically and statistically significant greater improvement in WOMAC pain (MD 15.5, p = 0.011) at 2-months.

CONCLUSION

Patients of male sex, younger age, worse preoperative knee specific function and HRQoL had a clinically significantly better early functional outcome with rTKA when compared to mTKA.

Methods of alignment in total knee arthroplasty, systematic review

Introduction

Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a very frequent surgery, one in five patients is not completely satisfied. Mechanical alignment (MA) is the most popular technique for implanting TKA. However, to improve clinical outcomes, new techniques that aim to rebuild the native alignment of the knee have been developed.

Objective

The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the available clinical trials and observational studies comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of different methods of alignment (kinematic, anatomic, functional) to MA.

Methods

A systematic review is performed comparing results of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaires (WOMAC, OKS, KSS, KOOS, FJS), radiological angles (HKA, mLDFA, MPTA, JLOA, femoral rotation and tibial slope) and range of motion (ROM).

Results

Kinematic and functional alignment show a slight tendency to obtain better PROMs compared to mechanical alignment. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Nevertheless, these results are not consistent in every study. Anatomic alignment showed no significant differences compared to mechanical alignment.

Conclusion

Kinematic alignment is an equal or slightly better alternative than mechanical alignment for patients included in this study. However, the difference between methods does not seem to be enough to explain the high percentage of dissatisfied patients. Studies implementing lax inclusion and exclusion criteria would be needed to resemble conditions of patients assisted in daily surgical practice. It would be interesting to study patient's knee phenotypes, to notice if any method of alignment is significantly better for any constitutional deviation.

Superiority of kinematic alignment over mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty during medium- to long-term follow-up: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

To compare and determine the reliability and conclusiveness of the medium- and long-term efficacy in terms of patient-reported outcome measures and the risk of revisions or reoperations (RRRs) of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database Library to identify relevant literature. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published before July 2023 were included. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and RRR were compared. Additionally, OKS and RRR were subjected to a trial sequential analysis.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 572 knees were identified. The pooled analysis of the included studies demonstrated that KA showed better medium-term WOMAC and OKS (mean difference [MD] = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.52 to -2.99, p < 0.05 and MD = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.05-2.15, p < 0.05), respectively), but no significant differences were observed in the long-term follow-up (MD = 2.1, 95% CI: -3.21 to 7.31, not significant [n.s.] and MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -2.43 to 2.46, n.s., respectively). FJS (standardised MD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.19, n.s.) and RRR (risk ratio = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.74, n.s.) showed no significant intergroup differences (n.s.). The evidence quality ranged from moderate to high, and the trial sequential analysis indicated the need for additional high-quality RCTs to draw more conclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

KA showed better medium-term WOMAC and OKS, while KA and MA had similar FJS without increasing the RRR in medium- and long-term follow-up. Further research is needed for more conclusive results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II (meta-analyses).

Patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty have a greater improvement in knee-specific pain but not in function

Aims

The aim was to assess whether robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) had greater knee-specific outcomes, improved fulfilment of expectations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and patient satisfaction when compared with manual TKA (mTKA).

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was undertaken (May 2019 to December 2021), and patients were allocated to either mTKA or rTKA. A total of 100 patients were randomized, 50 to each group, of whom 43 rTKA and 38 mTKA patients were available for review at 12 months following surgery. There were no statistically significant preoperative differences between the groups. The minimal clinically important difference in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was defined as 7.5 points.

Results

There were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the knee-specific measures (WOMAC, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)) or HRQoL measures (EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS)) at 12 months between the groups. However, the rTKA group had significantly (p = 0.029) greater improvements in the WOMAC pain component (mean difference 9.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 18.4) over the postoperative period (two, six, and 12 months), which was clinically meaningful. This was not observed for function (p = 0.248) or total (p = 0.147) WOMAC scores. The rTKA group was significantly (p = 0.039) more likely to have expectation of 'Relief of daytime pain in the joint' when compared with the mTKA group. There were no other significant differences in expectations met between the groups. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction with their knee (p = 0.464), return to work (p = 0.464), activities (p = 0.293), or pain (p = 0.701).

Conclusion

Patients undergoing rTKA had a clinically meaningful greater improvement in their knee pain over the first 12 months, and were more likely to have fulfilment of their expectation of daytime pain relief compared with patients undergoing mTKA. However, rTKA was not associated with a clinically significant greater knee-specific function or HRQoL, according to current definitions.

Higher satisfaction and function scores in restricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment with medial pivot design total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and medial pivot (MP) knee designs already showed superior outcomes in independent comparative studies. The objective of this study was to assess whether rKA with MP TKA provides better clinical and functional outcomes compared to mechanical alignment (MA) with MP TKA.

METHODS

This is a randomised, parallel two group study involving a total of 98 patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly allocated to either rKA or MA TKA procedures conducted with a MP prothesis using patient-specific instruments between 2017 and 2020. Final follow-up was at 2 years postoperatively. Demographic data and clinical and functional scores (Oxford knee score, knee society score [KSS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], forgotten joint score [FJS]) were collected and compared preoperative, 1 year postoperative and 2 years postoperative. Coronal plane alignment of the knee and functional knee phenotype classification were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (rKA) and 51 patients (MA) were included in final analysis. Superior joint awareness scores (FJS) were found at 1 year postoperative for rKA (62.2 vs. 52.4, p = 0.04). KSS subscores (expectation score, satisfaction score) improved with rKA with significant differences at both 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Major differences between rKA and MA were found in subgroup analysis of varus and neutral CPAK phenotypes. Both 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, FJS was significantly better in KA compared with MA in varus CPAK phenotypes (63.1 vs. 44.9, p = 0.03; 71.1 vs. 46.0, p = 0.005). Further clinical and functional scores showed improvement in the varus CPAK phenotypes with predominantly significant improvement in the expectation and satisfaction KSS subscores. No significant differences were found in the comparison of rKA and MA in neutral CPAK phenotypes.

CONCLUSION

The rKA of MP TKA design shows superior patient satisfaction and self-reported function when compared to MA MP TKA. Furthermore, rKA MP TKA shows superior joint awareness at early postoperative stage. The most important clinical relevance of this study is the clear superiority of rKA in varus phenotypes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Impact of change in coronal plane alignment of knee (CPAK) classification on outcomes of robotic-assisted TKA

BACKGROUND

Mechanical alignment with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been widely used since the implantation of the first prosthetic knee. Multiple studies have reported 80% patient satisfaction with TKA. However, the reported patients' dissatisfaction is believed to be caused by having to convert different knee alignments to neutral alignments. It is postulated that a change in the CPAK classification of knees leads to patient dissatisfaction. Thus, we hypothesized that a change in CPAK classification with robot-assisted TKA with mechanical alignment does not significantly lead to patient dissatisfaction.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 134 patients who underwent robot-assisted mechanical alignment total knee arthroplasty (MA-TKA) using cementless implants and classified them into CPAK system pre- and post-operatively. One year after TKA surgery, we recorded binary responses to patients' satisfaction with the outcome of surgery and analyzed if a change in CPAK classification is associated with the outcome of surgery.

RESULTS

We found that 125 out of 134 patients (93.28%) were happy with the outcome of surgery. CPAK classification was changed in 116 patients (86.57%) and maintained in 18 patients (13.43%). Our results also showed that 111 (95.7%) out of 116 patients who had a change in CPAK and 14 (77.8%) out of 18 patients who maintained their CPAK post-surgery were happy with the outcome of surgery (OR = 6.3, CI 1.741-25.17, P value = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

We concluded that changing the patient's native joint line and CPAK classification does not significantly change the outcome of surgery in terms of satisfaction. The dissatisfaction rate of 20% as published by previous researchers may be confounded by other reasons and not just due to changes in alignment and joint line.

Large multiplanar changes to native alignment have no apparent impact on clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This study sought to examine if achieved postoperative alignment when compared to the native anatomy would lead to a difference in Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and whether the achieved alignment could be broadly categorised by an accepted alignment strategy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data on patients undergoing single primary or bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was carried out. CT scans were used to determine the mean change ("delta values") between the pre and postoperative; hip-knee-ankle angle, lateral distal femoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle and femoral implant rotation. Femoral implant flexion and tibial implant slope were measured postoperatively. The primary outcome was the relationship of the variables to the change in KOOS pain subscale after one year. The secondary outcome was the number of knees which could be categorised postoperatively to an alignment strategy, and the mean PROMs in each cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 296 knees in 261 patients were available for analysis. With regards to the primary outcome, the delta values for each variable did not demonstrate any association with the change in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) pain score. Approximately 46% of knees could not be categorised to an alignment strategy based on postoperatively measured alignment, with no significant difference between each cohort with regards to the change in KOOS Pain score.

CONCLUSION

Achieved alignment does not consistently match accepted alignment strategies, and appears to confer no benefit to clinical outcomes when the native anatomy is most closely approximated, nor results in poorer outcomes in outliers. This study highlights the importance of routine three dimensional pre and postoperative imaging in clinical practice and for the valid analysis of outcomes in studies on alignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Effectiveness of Kinematic Alignment-Total Knee Arthroplasty in Treating Preoperative Varus and Valgus Deformities in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is surgically treated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Traditionally, TKA has been performed using a mechanical alignment (MA) philosophy. However, due to significant patient dissatisfaction with surgical outcomes, an alternate alignment approach, kinematic alignment (KA), has gained popularity. KA-TKAs have improved functional patient outcomes by restoring the patient's native joint line orientation and minimizing soft tissue releases compared to neutral alignment in MA-TKAs. This review explores the postoperative effectiveness of utilizing KA-TKA to treat knee OA in patients with preoperative varus and valgus deformities. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and Biomed Central databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search focused on studies analyzing the postoperative TKA outcomes in knee OA patients with preoperative varus or valgus deformities whose surgeries followed a KA philosophy and those comparing KA-TKA with MA-TKA. The available clinical evidence indicates that KA-TKA can be a viable treatment option for individuals with knee OA. The alignment of phenotypes has little clinical significance concerning functional outcomes and implant survival rates following KA-TKA. Furthermore, surgery outcomes in patients with preoperative deformities who underwent KA-TKA were similar to those who underwent MA-TKA. KA-TKA produced significantly better functional outcomes than MA-TKA in certain aspects. However, studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods that directly compare KA-TKA with MA-TKA in treating knee OA patients are needed to fully demonstrate the efficacy of each technique. Furthermore, further research into the effects of KA-TKA on implant survival rates will provide a better understanding of the benefits of this technique and ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.