Functional Alignment Philosophy in Total Knee Arthroplasty-Rationale and Technique for the Valgus Morphotype Using an Image Based Robotic Platform and Individualized Planning

Robotic assessment of patella tracking in total knee arthroplasty

OBJECTIVES

Robotic tools have been developed to improve planning, accuracy and outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to describe and illustrate a novel technique for assessing the patellofemoral (PFJ) in TKA using an imageless robotic platform.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 30 R-TKA was undertaken by a single surgeon utilising the described technique. A technique to dynamically assess the PFJ intra-operatively, pre- and post-implantation was developed. A full set of data from 9 cases was then collected and reviewed for analysis. A series of dynamic PFJ tracks collected intra-operatively pre- and post-implantation are presented. Furthermore, a full assessment of PFJ over and under-stuffing through a 90° arc of flexion is illustrated. Finally, a pre- and post-centre of rotation for the PFJ was defined and measured.

RESULTS

The described technique was defined over a series of 30 R-TKA using the described robotic platform. Nine cases were analysed to determine what data could be measured using the robotic platform. Intra-operative real-time data allowed a visual assessment of PFJ tracking through a range of motion of 0°-90° flexion pre- and post-implantation. PFJ over and under-stuffing was also assessed intra-operatively through a range of motion of 0°-90° flexion. Post-operative analysis allowed a more detailed study to be performed, including defining a pre- and post-implantation centre of rotation (COR) for the patella. Defining the COR allowed the definition of a patella plane. Furthermore, patella mediolateral shift in full extension, and end flexion could be measured.

CONCLUSION

Intra-operative assessment of the PFJ in TKA is challenging. Robotic tools have been developed to improve measurement, accuracy of delivery and outcomes in TKA. These tools can be adapted in novel ways to assess the PFJ, which may lead to further refinements in TKA techniques.

Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs

BACKGROUND

The coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification was first developed using long leg radiographs (LLR) and has since been reported using image-based and imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems. However, the correspondence between imageless robotics and LLR-derived CPAK parameters has yet to be investigated. This study therefore examined the differences in CPAK parameters determined with LLR and imageless robotic navigation using either generic or optimized cartilage wear assumptions.

METHODS

Medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) were determined from the intraoperative registration data of 61 imageless robotic TKAs using either a generic 2 mm literature-based wear assumption (Navlit) or an optimized wear assumption (Navopt) found using an error minimization algorithm. MPTA and LDFA were also measured from preoperative LLR by two observers and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. MPTA, LDFA, joint line obliquity (JLO), and arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) were compared between the robotic and the average LLR measurements over the two observers.

RESULTS

ICCs between observers for LLR were over 0.95 for MPTA, LDFA, JLO, and aHKA, indicating excellent agreement. Mean CPAK differences were not significant between LLR and Navlit (all differences within 0.6°, P > 0.1) or Navopt (all within 0.1°, P > 0.83). Mean absolute errors (MAE) between LLR and Navlit were: LDFA = 1.4°, MPTA = 2.0°, JLO = 2.1°, and aHKA = 2.7°. Compared to LLR, the generic wear classified 88% and the optimized wear classified 94% of knees within one CPAK group. Bland-Altman comparisons reported good agreement for LLR vs. Navlit and Navopt, with > 95% and > 91.8% of measurements within the limits of agreement across all CPAK parameters, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Imageless robotic navigation data can be used to calculate CPAK parameters for arthritic knees undergoing TKA with good agreement to LLR. Generic wear assumptions determined MPTA and LDFA with MAE within 2° and optimizing wear assumptions showed negligible improvement.

Why Kinematic Alignment Makes Little Sense in Valgus Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Narrative Review

There is a debate about the best alignment strategies in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Mechanical alignment (MA) targets in combination with necessary soft tissue releases are the gold standard for TKA in end-stage valgus osteoarthritis. Some authors propagate kinematic alignment (KA) with the aim of restoring the patient's native alignment and minimizing the need for soft tissue releases. Our previous studies showed that MA with standardized soft tissue release produces reproducible results, and that the preoperative phenotype does not influence the results of patients with valgus osteoarthritis. These data suggest that there is no functional advantage to preserving valgus alignment in patients with valgus osteoarthritis. Many patients with valgus osteoarthritis present with a compromised medial collateral ligament and leaving the knee in valgus could increase the risk of secondary instability. The current literature supports MA TKA with soft tissue release as the gold standard. While using more sophisticated enabling technologies like robotic surgery might allow for aiming for very slight (1-2°) valgus alignment on the femoral side, any valgus alignment outside this range should be avoided. This review paper summarizes our current knowledge on the surgical techniques of TKA in patients with valgus osteoarthritis.

Short-term functional outcomes of robotic-assisted TKA are better with functional alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment

INTRODUCTION

Ligament balancing is essential to the functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The optimal method of alignment remains a controversial issue. The primary objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of TKA between functional and adjusted mechanical alignment techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare bone resection, robotic alignment, and radiological assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control series comparing TKA performed with functional alignment (FA) and adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA). Sixty-four FA subjects were matched with 64 aMA controls. These two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), surgeon, and type of frontal deformity. Both surgical procedures were performed using the MAKO® haptic robotic system. Functional scores (Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS)) were measured at the final postoperative follow-up. A radiographic evaluation was performed at the same time.

RESULTS

Mean FJS were respectively 63.4 ± 25.1 [0-100] and 51.2 ± 31.8 [0-100] in FA versus aMA group (p = 0.034). Mean OKS were respectively 40.8 ± 6.3 [21-48] and 34.9 ± 11.8 [3-48] in FA versus aMA group (p = 0.027). Mean KSS were respectively 184.9 ± 17.0 [126-200] and 175.6 ± 23.1 [102-200] in FA versus aMA group (p = 0.02). The main residual symptom was "none" for 73.0% versus 57.8%, "instability" for 6.4% versus 21.9%, "Pain" for 19.1% versus 12.5%, and "effusion" for 1.6% and 7.8% respectively for FA and aMA group (p = 0.016). There were 4 complications in the FA group versus 5 in the aMA group (p > 0.999). Mean postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) robotic assessment were respectively 177.3° ± 2.0 [172-180] and 178.2° ± 2.0 [173-180] for FA and aMA group (p = 0.018). The median difference between HKA robotic and HKA radiological was -3.0° (IQR = 3.0; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

With greater residual deformity and without release, functional alignment showed a statistically significantly better short-term clinical outcome than adjusted mechanical alignment. This difference may not be clinically significant.

Definitions and consequences of current alignment techniques and phenotypes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) - there is no winner yet

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been extensively documented and it was attributed to numerous factors. In recent years, significant focus has been directed towards implant alignment and stability as potential causes and solutions to this issue. Surgeons are now exploring a more personalized approach to TKA, recognizing the importance of thoroughly understanding each individual patient's anatomy and functional morphology. A more comprehensive preoperative analysis of alignment and knee morphology is essential to address the unresolved questions in knee arthroplasty effectively. The crucial task of determining the most appropriate alignment strategy for each patient arises, given the substantial variability in bone resection resulting from the interplay of phenotype and the alignment strategy chosen. This review aims to comprehensively present the definitions of different alignment techniques in all planes and discuss the consequences dependent on knee phenotypes.Level of evidence V.