Aims. This study aimed to evaluate if total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral components aligned in either mechanical alignment (MA) or kinematic alignment (KA) are more biomimetic concerning trochlear sulcus orientation and restoration of trochlear height. Methods. Bone surfaces from 1,012 CT scans of non-arthritic femora were segmented using a modelling and analytics system. TKA femoral components (Triathlon; Stryker) were virtually implanted in both MA and KA. Trochlear sulcus orientation was assessed by measuring the distal trochlear sulcus angle (DTSA) in native femora and in KA and MA prosthetic femoral components. Trochlear anatomy restoration was evaluated by measuring the differences in medial, lateral, and sulcus trochlear height between native femora and KA and MA prosthetic femoral components. Results. Femoral components in both MA and KA alignments exhibited a more valgus DTSA compared to native femora. However, DTSA deviation from native was significantly less in KA than in MA (4.8° (SD 2.2°) vs 8.8° (SD 1.8°); p < 0.001). DTSA deviation from native orientation correlated positively with the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) in KA and negatively in MA (r = 0.53, p < 0.001; r = -0.18, p < 0.001). Medial trochlear height was not restored with either MA or KA, with MA resulting in lower medial trochlear height than KA in the proximal 20% of the trochlea. Lateral and sulcus trochlear height was not restored with either alignment in the proximal 80% of the trochlea. At the terminal arc point, KA replicated sulcus and lateral trochlear height, while MA led to over-restoration. Conclusion. Femoral components aligned in KA demonstrated greater biomimetic qualities than those in MA regarding trochlear sulcus orientation and trochlear height restoration, particularly in valgus femora. Variability across knees was observed, warranting further research to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):817–825

Aims. Patient-specific instrumentation of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a technique permitting the targeting of individual kinematic alignment, but deviation from a neutral mechanical axis may have implications on implant fixation and therefore survivorship. The primary objective of this randomized controlled study was to compare the fixation of tibial components implanted with patient-specific instrumentation targeting kinematic alignment (KA+PSI) versus components placed using computer-assisted surgery targeting neutral mechanical alignment (MA+CAS). Tibial component migration measured by radiostereometric analysis was the primary outcome measure (compared longitudinally between groups and to published acceptable thresholds). Secondary outcome measures were inducible displacement after one year and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) over two years. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between alignment and both tibial component migration and inducible displacement. Patients and Methods. A total of 47 patients due to undergo TKA were randomized to KA+PSI (n = 24) or MA+CAS (n = 23). In the KA+PSI group, there were 16 female and eight male patients with a mean age of 64 years (. sd. 8). In the MA+CAS group, there were 17 female and six male patients with a mean age of 63 years (. sd. 7). Surgery was performed using cemented, cruciate-retaining Triathlon total knees with patellar resurfacing, and patients were followed up for two years. The effect of alignment on tibial component migration and inducible displacement was analyzed irrespective of study group. Results. There was no difference over two years in longitudinal migration of the tibial component between the KA+PSI and MA+CAS groups (reaching median maximum total point motion migration at two years of 0.40 mm for the KA+PSI group and 0.37 mm for the MA+CAS group, p = 0.82; p = 0.68 adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) for all follow-ups). Both groups had mean migrations below acceptable thresholds. There was no difference in inducible displacement (p = 0.34) or PROMS (p = 0.61 for the Oxford Knee Score) between groups. There was no correlation between alignment and tibial component migration or alignment and inducible displacement. These findings support non-neutral alignment as a viable option with this component, with no evidence that it compromises fixation. Conclusion. Kinematic alignment using patient-specific instrumentation in TKA was associated with acceptable tibial component migration, indicating stable fixation. These results are supportive of future investigations of kinematic alignment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:929–940

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. Overall, 71.6% had an aHKA change ≤ 2°, and 87.0% a JLO change ≤ 3°. Mean aHKA changed from -1.1° (SD 2.8°) in KA to -1.9° (SD 2.3°) in FA (mean difference (MD) -0.83 (SD 2.0); p < 0.001). Mean JLO changed from 173.9° (SD 3.0°) in KA to 174.2° (SD 2.6°) in FA (MD 0.38 (SD 2.3); p < 0.001). CPAK type was maintained in 58.1% of knees, with the proportion highest for Types I (73.9%), II (61.1%), and IV (51.2%). In valgus knees, 67.5% of Type III and 71.7% of Type VI were shifted to neutral phenotypes. There was minimal change to constitutional JLO across all CPAK types (MDs -2.0° to 1.2°). Conclusion. Functional alignment may alter CPAK type, but does not significantly change JLO. A kinematic starting point minimizes changes to native anatomy, while final position with FA provides an optimally balanced TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1081–1091

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 measurements acquired with computer assistance to fulfill good coordination of soft-tissue balance and alignment. The KA-TKA approach aims to restore the patients’ own harmony of three knee elements (morphology, soft-tissue balance, and alignment) and eventually the patients’ own kinematics. The respective approaches start from different points corresponding to one of the elements, yet each aim for the same goal, although the existing implants and techniques have not yet perfectly fulfilled that goal

Aims. Alternative alignment concepts, including kinematic and restricted kinematic, have been introduced to help improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results, along with patient satisfaction, following TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment. Methods. A total of 121 consecutive TKAs performed between 11 February 2018 to 11 June 2019 with preoperative varus deformity were reviewed at minimum one-year follow-up. Three knees were excluded due to severe preoperative varus deformity greater than 15°, and a further three due to requiring revision surgery, leaving 109 patients and 115 knees to undergo primary TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment with advanced technology. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the preoperative limb varus deformity: Group A with 1° to 5° varus (43 knees); Group B between 6° and 10° varus (56 knees); and Group C with varus greater than 10° (16 knees). This study group was compared with a matched cohort of 115 TKAs and 115 patients using a neutral mechanical alignment target with manual instruments performed from 24 October 2016 to 14 January 2019. Results. Mean overall patient satisfaction for the entire cohort was 4.7 (SE 0.1) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 93% being either very satisfied or satisfied compared with a Likert of 4.3 and patient satisfaction of 81% in the mechanical alignment group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.006 respectively). At mean follow-up of 17 months (11 to 27), the mean overall Likert, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Society Knee and Function Scores were significantly better in the kinematic group than in the neutral mechanical alignment group. The most common complication in both groups was contracture requiring manipulation under anaesthesia, involving seven knees (6.1%) in the kinematic group and nine knees (7.8%) in the mechanical alignment group. Conclusion. With the advent of advanced technology, and the ability to obtain accurate bone cuts, the target limb alignment, and soft-tissue balance within millimetres, using a restricted kinematic alignment concept demonstrated excellent patient satisfaction following primary TKA. Longer-term analysis is required as to the durability of this method. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):59–66

Aims. The mid-term results of kinematic alignment (KA) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using image derived instrumentation (IDI) have not been reported in detail, and questions remain regarding ligamentous stability and revisions. This paper aims to address the following: 1) what is the distribution of alignment of KA TKAs using IDI; 2) is a TKA alignment category associated with increased risk of failure or poor patient outcomes; 3) does extending limb alignment lead to changes in soft-tissue laxity; and 4) what is the five-year survivorship and outcomes of KA TKA using IDI?. Methods. A prospective, multicentre, trial enrolled 100 patients undergoing KA TKA using IDI, with follow-up to five years. Alignment measures were conducted pre- and postoperatively to assess constitutional alignment and final implant position. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of pain and function were also included. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry was used to assess survivorship. Results. The postoperative HKA distribution varied from 9° varus to 11° valgus. All PROMs showed statistical improvements at one year (p < 0.001), with further improvements at five years for Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score symptoms (p = 0.041) and Forgotten Joint Score (p = 0.011). Correlation analysis showed no difference (p = 0.610) between the hip-knee-ankle and joint line congruence angle at one and five years. Sub-group analysis showed no difference in PROMs for patients placed within 3° of neutral compared to those placed > 3°. There were no revisions for tibial loosening; however, there were reports of a higher incidence of poor patella tracking and patellofemoral stiffness. Conclusion. PROMs were not impacted by postoperative alignment category. Ligamentous stability was maintained at five years with joint line obliquity. There were no revisions for tibial loosening despite a significant portion of tibiae placed in varus; however, KA executed with IDI resulted in a higher than anticipated rate of patella complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):656–665

Aims. The aims of this study were: 1) to describe extended restricted kinematic alignment (E-rKA), a novel alignment strategy during robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA); 2) to compare residual medial compartment tightness following virtual surgical planning during RA-TKA using mechanical alignment (MA) and E-rKA, in the same set of osteoarthritic varus knees; 3) to assess the requirement of soft-tissue releases during RA-TKA using E-rKA; and 4) to compare the accuracy of surgical plan execution between knees managed with adjustments in component positioning alone, and those which require additional soft-tissue releases. Methods. Patients who underwent RA-TKA between January and December 2022 for primary varus osteoarthritis were included. Safe boundaries for E-rKA were defined. Residual medial compartment tightness was compared following virtual surgical planning using E-rKA and MA, in the same set of knees. Soft-tissue releases were documented. Errors in postoperative alignment in relation to planned alignment were compared between patients who did (group A) and did not (group B) require soft-tissue releases. Results. The use of E-rKA helped restore all knees within the predefined boundaries, with appropriate soft-tissue balancing. E-rKA compared with MA resulted in reduced residual medial tightness following surgical planning, in full extension (2.71 mm (SD 1.66) vs 5.16 mm (SD 3.10), respectively; p < 0.001), and 90° of flexion (2.52 mm (SD 1.63) vs 6.27 mm (SD 3.11), respectively; p < 0.001). Among the study population, 156 patients (78%) were managed with minor adjustments in component positioning alone, while 44 (22%) required additional soft-tissue releases. The mean errors in postoperative alignment were 0.53 mm and 0.26 mm among patients in group A and group B, respectively (p = 0.328). Conclusion. E-rKA is an effective and reproducible alignment strategy during RA-TKA, permitting a large proportion of patients to be managed without soft-tissue releases. The execution of minor alterations in component positioning within predefined multiplanar boundaries is a better starting point for gap management than soft-tissue releases. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):628–636

Aims. Sagittal plane imbalance (SPI), or asymmetry between extension and flexion gaps, is an important issue in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to compare SPI between kinematic alignment (KA), mechanical alignment (MA), and functional alignment (FA) strategies. Methods. In 137 robotic-assisted TKAs, extension and flexion stressed gap laxities and bone resections were measured. The primary outcome was the proportion and magnitude of medial and lateral SPI (gap differential > 2.0 mm) for KA, MA, and FA. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of knees with severe (> 4.0 mm) SPI, and resection thicknesses for each technique, with KA as reference. Results. FA showed significantly lower rates of medial and lateral SPI (2.9% and 2.2%) compared to KA (45.3%; p < 0.001, and 25.5%; p < 0.001) and compared to MA (52.6%; p < 0.001 and 29.9%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in medial and lateral SPI between KA and MA (p = 0.228 and p = 0.417, respectively). FA showed significantly lower rates of severe medial and lateral SPI (0 and 0%) compared to KA (8.0%; p < 0.001 and 7.3%; p = 0.001) and compared to MA (10.2%; p < 0.001 and 4.4%; p = 0.013). There was no difference in severe medial and lateral SPI between KA and MA (p = 0.527 and p = 0.307, respectively). MA resulted in thinner resections than KA in medial extension (mean difference (MD) 1.4 mm, SD 1.9; p < 0.001), medial flexion (MD 1.5 mm, SD 1.8; p < 0.001), and lateral extension (MD 1.1 mm, SD 1.9; p < 0.001). FA resulted in thinner resections than KA in medial extension (MD 1.6 mm, SD 1.4; p < 0.001) and lateral extension (MD 2.0 mm, SD 1.6; p < 0.001), but in thicker medial flexion resections (MD 0.8 mm, SD 1.4; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Mechanical and kinematic alignment (measured resection techniques) result in high rates of SPI. Pre-resection angular and translational adjustments with functional alignment, with typically smaller distal than posterior femoral resection, address this issue. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):681–687

Limb alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) influences periarticular soft-tissue tension, biomechanics through knee flexion, and implant survival. Despite this, there is no uniform consensus on the optimal alignment technique for TKA. Neutral mechanical alignment facilitates knee flexion and symmetrical component wear but forces the limb into an unnatural position that alters native knee kinematics through the arc of knee flexion. Kinematic alignment aims to restore native limb alignment, but the safe ranges with this technique remain uncertain and the effects of this alignment technique on component survivorship remain unknown. Anatomical alignment aims to restore predisease limb alignment and knee geometry, but existing studies using this technique are based on cadaveric specimens or clinical trials with limited follow-up times. Functional alignment aims to restore the native plane and obliquity of the joint by manipulating implant positioning while limiting soft tissue releases, but the results of high-quality studies with long-term outcomes are still awaited. The drawbacks of existing studies on alignment include the use of surgical techniques with limited accuracy and reproducibility of achieving the planned alignment, poor correlation of intraoperative data to long-term functional outcomes and implant survivorship, and a paucity of studies on the safe ranges of limb alignment. Further studies on alignment in TKA should use surgical adjuncts (e.g. robotic technology) to help execute the planned alignment with improved accuracy, include intraoperative assessments of knee biomechanics and periarticular soft-tissue tension, and correlate alignment to long-term functional outcomes and survivorship

Aims. A comprehensive classification for coronal lower limb alignment with predictive capabilities for knee balance would be beneficial in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This paper describes the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification and examines its utility in preoperative soft tissue balance prediction, comparing kinematic alignment (KA) to mechanical alignment (MA). Methods. A radiological analysis of 500 healthy and 500 osteoarthritic (OA) knees was used to assess the applicability of the CPAK classification. CPAK comprises nine phenotypes based on the arithmetic HKA (aHKA) that estimates constitutional limb alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). Intraoperative balance was compared within each phenotype in a cohort of 138 computer-assisted TKAs randomized to KA or MA. Primary outcomes included descriptive analyses of healthy and OA groups per CPAK type, and comparison of balance at 10° of flexion within each type. Secondary outcomes assessed balance at 45° and 90° and bone recuts required to achieve final knee balance within each CPAK type. Results. There was similar frequency distribution between healthy and arthritic groups across all CPAK types. The most common categories were Type II (39.2% healthy vs 32.2% OA), Type I (26.4% healthy vs 19.4% OA) and Type V (15.4% healthy vs 14.6% OA). CPAK Types VII, VIII, and IX were rare in both populations. Across all CPAK types, a greater proportion of KA TKAs achieved optimal balance compared to MA. This effect was largest, and statistically significant, in CPAK Types I (100% KA vs 15% MA; p < 0.001), Type II (78% KA vs 46% MA; p = 0.018). and Type IV (89% KA vs 0% MA; p < 0.001). Conclusion. CPAK is a pragmatic, comprehensive classification for coronal knee alignment, based on constitutional alignment and JLO, that can be used in healthy and arthritic knees. CPAK identifies which knee phenotypes may benefit most from KA when optimization of soft tissue balance is prioritized. Further, it will allow for consistency of reporting in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):329–337

Aims. 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). Methods. 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. Results. A total of 63 patients (70 knees) were randomized to KA and 62 patients (68 knees) to MA. Mean ICPD at 10° flexion in the KA group was 11.7 psi (SD 13.1) compared with 32.0 psi in the MA group (SD 28.9), with a mean difference in ICPD between KA and MA of 20.3 psi (p < 0.001). Mean ICPD in the KA group was significantly lower than in the MA group at 45° and 90°, respectively (25.2 psi MA vs 14.8 psi KA, p = 0.004; 19.1 psi MA vs 11.7 psi KA, p < 0.002, respectively). Overall, participants in the KA group were more likely to achieve optimal knee balance (80% vs 35%; p < 0.001). Bone recuts to achieve knee balance were more likely to be required in the MA group (49% vs 9%; p < 0.001). More participants in the MA group had tibiofemoral lift-off (43% vs 13%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. This study provides persuasive evidence that restoring the constitutional alignment with KA in TKA results in a statistically significant improvement in quantitative knee balance, and further supports this technique as a viable alternative to MA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(1):117–124

We have previously reported the short-term radiological results of a randomised controlled trial comparing kinematically aligned total knee replacement (TKR) and mechanically aligned TKR, along with early pain and function scores. In this study we report the two-year clinical results from this trial. A total of 88 patients (88 knees) were randomly allocated to undergo either kinematically aligned TKR using patient-specific guides, or mechanically aligned TKR using conventional instruments. They were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The patients and the clinical evaluator were blinded to the method of alignment. At a minimum of two years, all outcomes were better for the kinematically aligned group, as determined by the mean Oxford knee score (40 (15 to 48) versus 33 (13 to 48); p = 0.005), the mean Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC) (15 (0 to 63) versus 26 (0 to 73); p = 0.005), mean combined Knee Society score (160 (93 to 200) versus 137 (64 to 200); p= 0.005) and mean flexion of 121° (100 to 150) versus 113° (80 to 130) (p = 0.002). The odds ratio of having a pain-free knee at two years with the kinematically aligned technique (Oxford and WOMAC pain scores) was 3.2 (p = 0.020) and 4.9 (p = 0.001), respectively, compared with the mechanically aligned technique. Patients in the kinematically aligned group walked a mean of 50 feet further in hospital prior to discharge compared with the mechanically aligned group (p = 0.044). In this study, the use of a kinematic alignment technique performed with patient-specific guides provided better pain relief and restored better function and range of movement than the mechanical alignment technique performed with conventional instruments. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:907–13

Aims

The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification is a simple and comprehensive system for predicting pre-arthritic knee alignment. However, when the CPAK classification is applied in the Asian population, which is characterized by more varus and wider distribution in lower limb alignment, modifications in the boundaries of arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) and joint line obliquity (JLO) should be considered. The purposes of this study were as follows: first, to propose a modified CPAK classification based on the actual joint line obliquity (aJLO) and wider range of aHKA in the Asian population; second, to test this classification in a cohort of Asians with healthy knees; third, to propose individualized alignment targets for different CPAK types in kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the proportion of patients with outlier varus or valgus alignment in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA), whether those with outlier varus or valgus alignment have higher forces in the medial or lateral compartments of the knee than those with in-range alignment and whether measurements of the alignment of the limb, knee and components predict compartment forces. Patients and Methods. The intra-operative forces in the medial and lateral compartments were measured with an instrumented tibial insert in 67 patients who underwent a kinematically aligned TKA during passive movement. The mean of the forces at full extension, 45° and 90° of flexion determined the force in the medial and lateral compartments. Measurements of the alignment of the limb and the components included the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, proximal medial tibial angle (PMTA), and distal lateral femoral angle (DLFA). Measurements of the alignment of the knee and the components included the tibiofemoral angle (TFA), tibial component angle (TCA) and femoral component angle (FCA). Alignment was measured on post-operative, non-weight-bearing anteroposterior (AP) scanograms and categorised as varus or valgus outlier or in-range in relation to mechanically aligned criteria. Results. The proportion of patients with outlier varus or valgus alignment was 16%/24% for the HKA angle, 55%/0% for the PMTA, 0%/57% for the DLFA, 25%/12% for the TFA, 100%/0% for the TCA, and 0%/64% for the FCA. In general, the forces in the medial and lateral compartments of those with outlier alignment were not different from those with in-range alignment except for the TFA, in which patients with outlier varus alignment had a mean paradoxical force which was 6 lb higher in the lateral compartment than those with in-range alignment. None of the measurements of alignment of the limb, knee and components predicted the force in the medial or lateral compartment. Conclusion. Although kinematically aligned TKA has a high proportion of varus or valgus outliers using mechanically aligned criteria, the intra-operative forces in the medial and lateral compartments of patients with outlier alignment were comparable with those with in-range alignment, with no evidence of overload of the medial or lateral compartment of the knee. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1319–28

Aims

Once knee arthritis and deformity have occurred, it is currently not known how to determine a patient’s constitutional (pre-arthritic) limb alignment. The purpose of this study was to describe and validate the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle (aHKA) algorithm as a straightforward method for preoperative planning and intraoperative restoration of the constitutional limb alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the post-operative radiographic and clinical outcomes between kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).

Objectives

Little biomechanical information is available about kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to simulate the kinematics and kinetics after KA TKA and mechanically aligned (MA) TKA with four different limb alignments.

Abstract. Introduction. Controversy exists regarding the optimal tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Many believe navigation or robotics are required to set kinematic alignments or to ensure they remain within ‘safe’ limits e.g. maximum 5° varus on the tibia. Given most navigation or robotic systems require the surgeon to identify the ankle malleoli, this study aimed to radiographically analyse standardly used intra-operative landmarks around the ankle, assessing their value in achieving kinematic alignment / setting safety boundaries. Materials and Methods. Long leg alignment radiographs were analysed independently by two orthopaedic surgeons at two time points, eight weeks apart. Angles were measured between the long axis of the tibia (TB) and: 1. lateral malleolus (TB-LM), 2. lateral border of the talus (TB-LT) and 3. medial aspect of the medial malleolus (TB-MM). Intra- and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed. Results. One hundred and sixty-seven radiographs in 119 patients were analysed; mean age 71.6 years. Mean angles (95% CI) were: TB-LM 4.8° (4.7°- 4.8°), TB-LT 2.6° (2.5° - 2.6°) and TB-MM 4.2° (4.1° - 4.2°). Interrater reliability was good for TB-LM (ICC = 0.72) and TB-MM (ICC=0.67), and fair for TB-LT (ICC= 0.50). Intra-rater reliability was excellent for all measures (ICC >0.85). Conclusion. There are consistent angles between tibial alignment and ankle landmarks. Using these landmarks, with standard instrumentation and alignment checks, allows surgeons to define safe limits, e.g. maximum 4.8° tibial varus if aligned to the tip of the lateral malleolus or set a 2.5° varus cut, without the need for added technology

Abstract. Introduction. OtisMed Shape Match ® patient specific implant cutting jigs were designed to place TKA in kinematic alignment (KA) rather than traditional mechanical alignment (MA). This product was withdrawn from the market in 2013. It has been hypothesised that KA might lead to early implant failure. Initial evidence has not supported this. We present 10 year outcome data for the largest single centre cohort to date. Methodology. Between 2010 and 2013, 127 Shape Match® TKAs were implanted in 119 individuals. Retrospective review of long leg post-operative radiographs assessed femoral mechanical anatomical angle (FMA), tibial mechanical angle (TMA), hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), posterior tibial slope (PTS) and femoral component flexion. Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), revision and further surgery rates were reviewed. Results. 4 (3.1%) patients underwent revision for instability, recurrent haemarthrosis, stiffness and infection respectively. In this subgroup, PTS ranged from 9–25° (SD 7.5°). PTS range for non-revision subgroup was 1–23° (SD 4.6). 1 patient with a PTS of 21° had failure of quadriceps tendon, but was not revised. Mean OKS at 1year = 38.1 (SD 1.08), 2 years = 39.3 (SD 1.08), 5 years = 40.8 (SD 4.11). PTS had the largest impact on OKS, with <10° slope conferring a higher OKS. Conclusions. At 10 year follow up, this cohort did identify several cases where excessive PTS was evident. This may have led to revision surgery and contributed post-operative complications. PTS, unlike other alignment measures, impacted OKS results. Overall revision rate and OKS were consistent with registry and other published data

Aims. The results of kinematic total knee arthroplasty (KTKA) have been reported in terms of limb and component alignment parameters but not in terms of gap laxities and differentials. In kinematic alignment (KA), balance should reflect the asymmetrical balance of the normal knee, not the classic rectangular flexion and extension gaps sought with gap-balanced mechanical axis total knee arthroplasty (MATKA). This paper aims to address the following questions: 1) what factors determine coronal joint congruence as measured on standing radiographs?; 2) is flexion gap asymmetry produced with KA?; 3) does lateral flexion gap laxity affect outcomes?; 4) is lateral flexion gap laxity associated with lateral extension gap laxity?; and 5) can consistent ligament balance be produced without releases?. Patients and Methods. A total of 192 KTKAs completed by a single surgeon using a computer-assisted technique were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (2 to 5). There were 116 male patients (60%) and 76 female patients (40%) with a mean age of 65 years (48 to 88). Outcome measures included intraoperative gap laxity measurements and component positions, as well as joint angles from postoperative three-foot standing radiographs. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed in terms of alignment and balance: EuroQol (EQ)-5D visual analogue scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), KOOS Joint Replacement (JR), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Results. Postoperative limb alignment did not affect outcomes. The standing hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was the sole positive predictor of the joint line convergence angle (JLCA) (p < 0.001). Increasing lateral flexion gap laxity was consistently associated with better outcomes. Lateral flexion gap laxity did not correlate with HKA angle, the JLCA, or lateral extension gap laxity. Minor releases were required in one third of cases. Conclusion. The standing HKA angle is the primary determinant of the JLCA in KTKA. A rectangular flexion gap is produced in only 11% of cases. Lateral flexion gap laxity is consistently associated with better outcomes and does not affect balance in extension. Minor releases are sometimes required as well, particularly in limbs with larger preoperative deformities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:331–339