Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have both been shown to be effective treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Many studies have compared the outcomes of the two treatments, but less so with the use of robotics, or individualized TKA alignment techniques. Functional alignment (FA) is a novel technique for performing a TKA and shares many principles with UKA. Our aim was to compare outcomes from a case-matched series of robotic-assisted UKAs and robotic-assisted TKAs performed using FA. From a prospectively collected database between April 2015 and December 2019, patients who underwent a robotic-assisted medial UKA (RA-UKA) were case-matched with patients who had undergone a FA robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) during the same time period. Patients were matched for preoperative BMI, sex, age, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). A total of 101 matched pairs were eligible for final review. Postoperatively the groups were then compared for differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), ability to ascend and descend stairs, and ability to kneel.Aims
Methods
Functional alignment (FA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to achieve balanced gaps by adjusting implant positioning while minimizing changes to constitutional joint line obliquity (JLO). Although FA uses kinematic alignment (KA) as a starting point, the final implant positions can vary significantly between these two approaches. This study used the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification to compare differences between KA and final FA positions. A retrospective analysis compared pre-resection and post-implantation alignments in 2,116 robotic-assisted FA TKAs. The lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were measured to determine the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA = MPTA – LDFA), JLO (JLO = MPTA + LDFA), and CPAK type. The primary outcome was the proportion of knees that varied ≤ 2° for aHKA and ≤ 3° for JLO from their KA to FA positions, and direction and magnitude of those changes per CPAK phenotype. Secondary outcomes included proportion of knees that maintained their CPAK phenotype, and differences between sexes.Aims
Methods
