The kinematic alignment (KA) approach to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently increased in popularity. Accordingly, a number of derivatives have arisen and have caused confusion. Clarification is therefore needed for a better understanding of KA-TKA. Calipered (or true, pure) KA is performed by cutting the bone parallel to the articular surface, compensating for cartilage wear. In soft-tissue respecting KA, the tibial cutting surface is decided parallel to the femoral cutting surface (or trial component) with in-line traction. These approaches are categorized as unrestricted KA because there is no consideration of leg alignment or component orientation. Restricted KA is an approach where the periarthritic joint surface is replicated within a safe range, due to concerns about extreme alignments that have been considered ‘alignment outliers’ in the neutral mechanical alignment approach. More recently, functional alignment and inverse kinematic alignment have been advocated, where bone cuts are made following intraoperative planning, using
Intraoperative pressure sensors allow surgeons to quantify soft-tissue balance during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to determine whether using sensors to achieve soft-tissue balance was more effective than manual balancing in improving outcomes in TKA. A multicentre randomized trial compared the outcomes of sensor balancing (SB) with manual balancing (MB) in 250 patients (285 TKAs). The primary outcome measure was the mean difference in the four Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales (ΔKOOS4) in the two groups, comparing the preoperative and two-year scores. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative balance data, additional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and functional measures.Aims
Methods
It is unknown whether kinematic alignment (KA) objectively improves knee balance in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), despite this being the biomechanical rationale for its use. This study aimed to determine whether restoring the constitutional alignment using a restrictive KA protocol resulted in better quantitative knee balance than mechanical alignment (MA). We conducted a randomized superiority trial comparing patients undergoing TKA assigned to KA within a restrictive safe zone or MA. Optimal knee balance was defined as an intercompartmental pressure difference (ICPD) of 15 psi or less using a pressure sensor. The primary endpoint was the mean intraoperative ICPD at 10° of flexion prior to knee balancing. Secondary outcomes included balance at 45° and 90°, requirements for balancing procedures, and presence of tibiofemoral lift-off.Aims
Methods
