Abstract
Introduction
Neutral mechanical alignment in TKA has been shown to be an important consideration for survivorship, wear, and aseptic loosening. However, native knee anatomy is described by a joint line in 3° of varus, 2–3° of mechanical distal femoral valgus, and 2–3° of proximal tibia varus. Described kinematic planning methods replicate native joint alignment in extension without changing tibiofemoral alignment, but do not account for native alignment through a range of motion. An asymmetric TKA femoral component with a thicker medial femoral condyle and posterior condylar internal rotation paired with an asymmetric polyethylene insert aligns the joint line in 3° of varus while maintaining distal femoral and proximal tibial cuts perpendicular to mechanical axis. The asymmetric components recreate an anatomic varus joint line while avoiding tibiofemoral malalignment or femoral component internal rotation, a risk factor for patellofemoral maltracking. The study seeks to determine how many patients would be candidates for a kinematically planned knee without violating the principle of a neutral mechanical axis (0° ± 3°).
Methods
A cohort comprised of 55 consecutive preoperative THA patients with asymptomatic knees and 55 consecutive preoperative primary unilateral TKA patients underwent simultaneous biplanar radiographic imaging. Full length coronal images from the thoracolumbar junction to the ankles were measured by two independent observers for the following: mechanical tibiofemoral angle (mTFA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). Patients who met the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 87°±3°; and mMPTA 87°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with an asymmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis. Similarly, patients with the following conditions: mTFA 0°±3°; mLDFA 90°±3°; and mMPTA 90°±3°, were considered candidates for TKA with a symmetric implant that would achieve a kinematic joint line and neutral mechanical axis.
Results
In this cohort of 110 patients, the mean mTFA was 1° varus ± 5°, the mean mLDFA was 87° ± 3°, mMPTA 87°± 2°. The comparison of patients meeting each of the three conditions required for a TKA with a neutral mechanical axis and a kinematic joint line are outlined in Table 1.
Conclusion
A TKA with kinematic 3° varus joint line and neutral mechanical axis was possible in 52% of patients using an asymmetric implant and 23% of patients using a symmetric implant. Previous descriptions of kinematic planning using standard TKA components required compromise of neutral mechanical axis alignment with detrimental effects on overall survivorship. Knee arthroplasty using an asymmetric implant may achieve the best of both worlds, neutral mechanical axis and a kinematic joint line, in a large percentage of patients.
