Alignment for total knee replacement: a comparison of kinematic axis versus mechanical axis techniques. A cadaver study

No Difference in 10-year Clinical or Radiographic Outcomes Between Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment in TKA: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

There is continuing debate about the ideal philosophy for component alignment in TKA. However, there are limited long-term functional and radiographic data on randomized comparisons of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We present the 10-year follow-up findings of a single-center, multisurgeon randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing these two alignment philosophies in terms of the following questions: (1) Is there a difference in PROM scores? (2) Is there a difference in survivorship free from revision or reoperation for any cause? (3) Is there a difference in survivorship free from radiographic loosening?

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients undergoing primary TKA for osteoarthritis were randomized to either the mechanical alignment (n = 50) or kinematic alignment (n = 49) group. Eligibility for the study was patients undergoing unilateral TKA for osteoarthritis who were suitable for a cruciate-retaining TKA and could undergo MRI. Patients who had previous osteotomy, coronal alignment > 15° from neutral, a fixed flexion deformity > 15°, or instability whereby constrained components were being considered were excluded. Computer navigation was used in the mechanical alignment group, and patient-specific cutting blocks were used in the kinematic alignment group. At 10 years, 86% (43) of the patients in the mechanical alignment group and 80% (39) in the kinematic alignment group were available for follow-up performed as a per-protocol analysis. The PROMs that we assessed included the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC, Forgotten Joint Score, and EuroQol 5-Dimension score. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess survivorship free from reoperation (any reason) and revision (change or addition of any component). A single blinded observer assessed radiographs for signs of aseptic loosening (as defined by the presence of progressive radiolucent lines in two or more zones), which was reported as survivorship free from loosening.

RESULTS

At 10 years, there was no difference in any PROM score measured between the groups. Ten-year survivorship free from revision (components removed or added) likewise did not differ between the groups (96% [95% CI 91% to 99%] for the mechanical alignment group and 91% [95% CI 83% to 99%] for the kinematic alignment group; p = 0.38). There were two revisions in the mechanical alignment group (periprosthetic fracture, deep infection) and four in the kinematic alignment group (two secondary patella resurfacings, two deep infections). There was no statistically significant difference in reoperations for any cause between the two groups. There was no difference with regard to survivorship free from loosening on radiographic review (χ 2 = 1.3; p = 0.52) (progressive radiolucent lines seen at 10 years were 0% for mechanical alignment and 3% for kinematic alignment).

CONCLUSION

Like the 2-year and 5-year outcomes previously reported, 10-year follow-up for this RCT demonstrated no functional or radiographic difference in outcomes between mechanical alignment and kinematic alignment TKA. Anticipated functional benefits of kinematic alignment were not demonstrated, and revision-free survivorship at 10 years did not differ between the two groups. Given the unknown long-term impact of kinematic alignment with regard to implant position (especially tibial component varus), we must conclude that mechanical alignment remains the reference standard for TKA. We could not demonstrate any advantage to kinematic alignment at 10-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Establishing a New Patient-Specific Implantation Technique for Total Ankle Replacement: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Revision rates after total ankle replacements (TARs) are higher compared with other total joint replacements. The present study aimed to establish a new patient-specific implantation (PSI) technique for TAR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 10 complete Caucasian cadaver legs had whole leg computed tomography scans. The individual geometrical ankle joint axis was determined, and based on this axis, the position of the prosthesis was planned. We assessed prosthesis placement, guiding block position, and preoperative and postoperative ankle rotational axes.

RESULTS

The guiding block position interobserver reliability was 0.37 mm 0.45 (mean ± SD) for the tibial guiding block. The value for the first talar guiding block was 1.72 ± 1.3 mm and for the second talar guiding block, 0.61 ± 0.39 mm. The tibial slope as well as the frontal angles of the anatomical tibial axis compared to the tibial and talar articular surfaces showed no statistically relevant differences with numbers available. The deviation of the assessed preoperative joint axis to the postoperative joint axis was 14.6° ± 7.8.

CONCLUSION

The present study describes the results of an establishing process of a new PSI technique for TAR. The reliability of guiding block positioning and, thereby, prosthesis placement is sufficient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Biomechanical study.

Robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty maintains natural knee joint anatomy compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery.

METHODS

An analysis of 38 patients who underwent TKA and 32 who underwent bi-UKA was performed as a secondary study from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. CT imaging was used to measure coronal, sagittal, and axial alignment of the knee preoperatively and at three months postoperatively to determine changes in anatomy that had occurred as a result of the surgery. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) was also measured to identify any differences between the two groups.

RESULTS

The pre- to postoperative changes in joint anatomy were significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA in all three planes in both the femur and tibia, except for femoral sagittal component orientation in which there was no difference. Overall, for the six parameters of alignment (three femoral and three tibial), 47% of bi-UKAs and 24% TKAs had a change of < 2° (p = 0.045). The change in HKAA towards neutral in varus and valgus knees was significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA compared with those undergoing TKA (p < 0.001). Alignment was neutral in those undergoing TKA (mean 179.5° (SD 3.2°)) while those undergoing bi-UKA had mild residual varus or valgus alignment (mean 177.8° (SD 3.4°)) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes better, and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared with a mechanically aligned TKA. This includes preservation of coronal joint line obliquity. HKAA alignment was corrected towards neutral significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA, which may represent restoration of the pre-disease constitutional alignment (p < 0.001). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1511-1518.

No Difference in 5-year Clinical or Radiographic Outcomes Between Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment in TKA: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In kinematic alignment in TKA, the aim is to match the implant's position to the pre-arthritic anatomy of an individual patient, in contrast to the traditional goal of neutral mechanical alignment. However, there are limited mid-term, comparative data for survivorship and functional outcomes for these two techniques.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In the setting of a randomized, controlled trial at 5 years, is there a difference between kinematic alignment and mechanical alignment in TKA in terms of (1) patient-reported outcome measures, (2) survivorship free from revision or reoperation, and (3) the incidence of radiographic aseptic loosening?

METHODS

In the initial study, 99 primary TKAs for osteoarthritis were randomized to either the mechanical alignment (n = 50) or kinematic alignment (n = 49) group. Computer navigation was used in the mechanical alignment group, and patient-specific cutting blocks were used in the kinematic alignment group. At 5 years, 95% (48 of 50) of mechanical alignment and 96% (47 of 49) of kinematic alignment TKAs were available for follow-up. Knee function was assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS), VAS, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), WOMAC, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and EuroQol 5D. Survivorship free from reoperation (any reason) and revision (change or addition of any component) was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis. Radiographs were assessed for signs of aseptic loosening (as defined by the presence of progressive radiolucent lines in two or more zones) by a single blinded observer.

RESULTS

At 5 years, there were no differences in any patient-reported outcome measure between the two groups. For example, the mean OKS did not differ between the two groups (kinematic alignment: 41.4 ± 7.2 versus mechanical alignment: 41.7 ± 6.3; difference -0.3 [95% confidence interval - 3.2 to 2.5]; p = 0.99). At 5 years, survivorship free from reoperation was 92.2 (95% CI 80.4 to 97.0) for mechanical alignment and 89.7 (95% CI 77.0 to 95.6) for kinematic alignment (log rank test; p = 0.674), survivorship free from revision was 94.1 (95% CI 82.9 to 98.1) for mechanical alignment and 95.9 (95% CI 84.5 to 99.0) for kinematic alignment (log rank test; p = 0.681). At 5 years, one patient demonstrated radiographic aseptic loosening for the mechanical alignment group; no cases were identified for the kinematic alignment group.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no mid-term functional or radiographic differences between TKAs with mechanical alignment or kinematic alignment. The anticipated improvements in patient-reported outcomes with kinematic alignment were not realized. Because kinematic alignment results in a high proportion of patients whose tibial components are inserted in varus, loosening remains a potential long-term concern. Given the unknown impact on long-term survivorship of the substantial alignment alterations with kinematic alignment, our findings do not support the routine use of kinematic alignment outside of a research setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Similar results with kinematic and mechanical alignment applied in total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis compared the results of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) applied in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing functional, radiological, and perioperative results and complications in TKA with KA and MA were collected from databases and included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. KA showed a better performance in terms of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (mean difference [MD] =  - 9.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 14.69, - 3.42) and Oxford knee score (OKS) (MD = 4.72, 95% CI 0.24, 9.21); however, the Knee Society score (KSS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaire (ED-5D), range of motion, and complications were similar for KA and MA (n.s.). KA resulted in slightly more varus alignment in the tibia [mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) MD = - 2.45, 95% CI - 2.89, - 2.01) and more valgus alignment in the femur (mLDFA MD = - 2.06, 95% CI - 2.48, - 1.65) than MA (P < 0.05), but showed similar results in terms of the joint line orientation angle (JLOA) (MD = 0.54, 95% CI - 2.59, 3.66), hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), anatomical knee angle (AKA), femoral flexion-extension angle (FFA), and tibial slope (TS). The preoperative results, including the incision length, hospital stay, and changes in hemoglobin, were also similar.

CONCLUSION

KA achieved functional, radiological, and perioperative results similar to those of MA and did not increase the complication rate. KA is an acceptable and satisfactory method for application in TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Quality of life and functional outcome after single-radius and multi-radius total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The main objective of this study was to compare quality of life and functional outcome in patients who have undergone a single-radius (SR) or multi-radius (MR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The secondary objective was to observe changes in knee range of movement (ROM) and standardized knee scores (KSCs) in these patients. The hypothesis was that there would be no statistically significant difference between the two patient groups in quality of life and functional outcome.

METHODS

One hundred three SR TKAs were performed by a single surgeon between August 2008 and December 2012. A propensity score matching algorithm was used to select 103 MR TKAs performed during the same period. Preoperative and postoperative variables such as standardized knee and quality of life scores were captured prospectively and then analyzed via both the Student's t-test and paired t-test to look for statistically significant differences between the SR and MR patient groups.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference between the SR and MR patient populations in knee extension, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Clinical Rating Scores, and the Physical Component Summary of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). There was a statistically significant difference between the two patient groups in postoperative knee flexion in favor of the MR design ( p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

While an SR femoral implant design has several theoretical biomechanical advantages, postoperative standardized KSCs and quality of life scores in this single-surgeon series do not show a clear advantage of one design over the other.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Kinematic alignment is bone and soft tissue preserving compared to mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has emerged as an alternative approach to the intraoperative alignment targets of mechanically aligned (MA) TKA. While the clinical outcomes of the two philosophies have been investigated, further investigation is required to quantify exactly how the two philosophies differ in their approach to correcting the deformities encountered in osteoarthritic knees such as fixed flexion deformities (FFD) and coronal malalignment. The aim of this paper was to compare MA and KA philosophies in TKA in terms of the intra-operative correction of FFD and coronal malalignment and quantify the way in which each philosophy achieves a well-balanced knee that can reach full extension.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospective data collected from 210 consecutive TKAs performed by a single surgeon between March 2015 and May 2017 was undertaken. MA and KA cases were compared in terms of pre-operative patient deformity and characteristics, intraoperative steps taken to correct FFD (including bony resections, soft tissue releases and components used) and postoperative alignment achieved.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty MA and 90 KA TKAs were analysed. There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, gender and preoperative coronal and sagittal deformity between the two cohorts. KA TKAs were able to achieve the same degree of sagittal correction as MA TKAs with less total bony resection (16.7 mm vs. 18.9 mm, p < 0.0001), less soft tissue releases (10% vs. 49.2%, p < 0.0001). This was achieved with a difference in component alignment. The femur was in more valgus (-2.5 vs. -0.03°, p < 0.0001), the tibia in more varus (2.3 vs. 0.3°, p < 0.0001), and the overall alignment slightly more varus in the KA group (1.1 vs. 0.4°, p = 0.007), without significant difference in the proportion of patients within three degrees of a neutral axis.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that using a kinematic alignment philosophy in total knee arthroplasty results in the achievement of extension range-of-motion and soft tissue balance goals with less bone resection and less soft tissue release. This allows for bone stock preservation and minimization of trauma due to soft tissue release. Further study is required to correlate these results with patient reported outcomes and determine their clinical significance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III - retrospective cohort study.

Biomechanics and wear comparison between mechanical and kinematic alignments in total knee arthroplasty

The uses of mechanical and kinematic alignments in total knee arthroplasty are under debate in recent clinical investigations. In this study, the differences in short-term biomechanics and long-term wear volume between mechanical and kinematic alignments in total knee arthroplasty were investigated, based on a subject-specific musculoskeletal multi-body dynamics model during walking gait simulation. An increase of 8.2% in the peak tibiofemoral medial contact force, a posterior contact translation by maximum 4.7 mm and a decrease of 5.5% in the wear volume after a 10-million-cycle simulation were predicted in the kinematic alignment, compared with the mechanical alignment. Nevertheless, the tibiofemoral contact mechanics, the range of motions and the long-term wear were not markedly different between mechanical and kinematic alignments. Furthermore, the mechanical alignment with a posterior tibial slope similar to that under the kinematic alignment was found to produce similar anterior-posterior translation and the range of motion, and an approximate wear volume, compared with the kinematic alignment. The ligament forces under the kinematic alignment were influenced markedly by as much as 25%, 50% and 77% for the medial collateral ligament, lateral collateral ligament and posterior cruciate ligament forces, respectively. And, a maximum increase of 40% for patellofemoral contact force was predicted under the kinematic alignment. These findings suggest that the kinematic alignment is an alternative alignment principle but no marked advantages in biomechanics and wear to the mechanical alignment. The adverse effects of the kinematic alignment on patella loading and soft tissue forces should be noticed.

Outcome of kinematic alignment using patient-specific instrumentation versus mechanical alignment in TKA: a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of randomised trials

INTRODUCTION

Kinematic alignment (KA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) matches component position to the pre-arthritic anatomy of an individual patient, with the aim of improving functional outcomes. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing KA to traditional neutral mechanical alignment (MA) have been mixed. This collaborative study combined raw data from RCTs, aiming to compare functional outcomes between KA using patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and MA, and whether any patient subgroups may benefit more from KA technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases identified four randomised controlled trials comparing patients undergoing TKA using PSI-KA and MA. Unpublished data including Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Society Score (KSS) were obtained from study authors. Meta-analysis compared MA to KA change (post-op minus pre-op) scores. Subgroup-analysis on KA patients looked for subgroups more likely to benefit from KA and the impact of PSI accuracy.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of change scores in 229 KA patients versus 229 MA patients were no different from WOMAC (mean difference 3.4; 95% confidence interval - 0.5 to 7.3), KSS function (1.3, - 3.9 to 6.4) or KSS combined (7.2, - 0.8 to 15.2). A small advantage was seen for KSS pain in the KA group (3.6, 95% CI 0.2-7.1). Subgroup-analysis showed no difference between varus, valgus and neutral pre-operative alignment groups, and those who did and did not achieve KA plans. Pain-free patients at 1-year were more likely to achieve KA plans.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported outcome scores following TKA using PSI-KA are similar to MA. No identifiable subgroups benefited more from KA, and long-term results remain unknown. Inaccuracy of the PSI system used in KA patients could potentially affect outcome.

Assessment of patient-specific instrumentation precision through bone resection measurements

PURPOSE

In the present study, the precision of two patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was evaluated by comparing bony resection thicknesses of the pre-operative PSI planning and intra-operative measurements by a vernier calliper. It was hypothesized that the data provided by pre-operative planning were accurate within ±2 mm of the bone resection thickness measured intra-operatively.

METHODS

Forty-one patient-specific TKAs were examined: 25 performed with Visionaire^® technology and 16 with OtisMed^® system. PSI accuracy was analysed comparing the resected bone thicknesses in the femoral and tibial cuts with pre-operatively planned resections. To determine pre-operative planning precision, the thickness values reported by the PSI planning were subtracted from the values reported intra-operatively by the calliper.

RESULTS

The mean absolute differences between pre-operatively planned resections and corresponding intra-operative thickness measurements ranged from a minimum of 2.6 mm (SD 0.8) to a maximum of 3.6 mm (SD 1.3) in all three anatomical planes in both groups. In every plane, the mean absolute discrepancies between planned resections and measured cuts differed significantly from zero (p < 0.0001). The proportion of differences within ±2 mm between intra-operative measured resections and planned PSI cuts occurred in more than 90 % of the cohort for femoral distal resections. Less precision was reported for the femoral posterior medial cuts (70.7 % within ±2 mm) and the tibial cuts (70.7 % on the medial, 75.6 % on the lateral side). Prosthetic component alignment on the coronal and transverse planes resulted in considerable deviations from the pre-operative planning.

CONCLUSION

The two examined PSI technologies were accurate in femoral distal cuts, determining acceptable femoral component placement on the coronal plane. Posterior femoral and tibial cuts were less precise. Deviations from the pre-operative resection planning were reported in every plane. Inaccuracy was explained by ambiguous custom-made jigs placement on the bony surface.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award : No Difference in 2-year Functional Outcomes Using Kinematic versus Mechanical Alignment in TKA: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Neutral mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to position femoral and tibial components perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the limb. In contrast, kinematic alignment (KA) attempts to match implant position to the prearthritic anatomy of the individual patient with the aim of improving functional outcome. However, comparative data between the two techniques are lacking.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this randomized trial, we asked: (1) Are 2-year patient-reported outcome scores enhanced in patients with KA compared with an MA technique? (2) How does postoperative component alignment differ between the techniques? (3) Is the proportion of patients undergoing reoperation at 2 years different between the techniques?

METHODS

Ninety-nine primary TKAs in 95 patients were randomized to either MA (n = 50) or KA (n = 49) groups. A pilot study of 20 TKAs was performed before this trial using the same patient-specific guides positioning in kinematic alignment. In the KA group, patient-specific cutting blocks were manufactured using individual preoperative MRI data. In the MA group, computer navigation was used to ensure neutral mechanical alignment accuracy. Postoperative alignment was assessed with CT scan, and functional scores (including the Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC, and the Forgotten Joint Score) were assessed preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. No patients were lost to followup. We set sample size at a minimum of 45 patients per treatment arm based on a 5-point improvement in the mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS; the previously reported minimum clinically significant difference for the OKS in TKA), a pooled SD of 8.3, 80% power, and a two-sided significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

We observed no difference in 2-year change scores (postoperative minus preoperative score) in KA versus MA patients for the OKS (mean 21, SD 8 versus 20, SD 8, least square means 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 3.4, p = 0.4), WOMAC score (mean 38, SD 18 versus 35, SD 8, least square means 3, 95% CI, -3.2 to 8.9, p = 0.3), or Forgotten Joint score (28 SD 37 versus 28, SD 28, least square means 0.8, 95% CI, -9.1-10.7, p = 0.8). Postoperative hip-knee-ankle axis was not different between groups (mean KA 0.4° varus SD 3.5 versus MA 0.7° varus SD 2.0), but in the KA group, the tibial component was a mean 1.9° more varus than the MA group (95% CI, 0.8°-3.0°, p = 0.003) and the femoral component in 1.6° more valgus (95% CI, -2.5° to -0.7°, p = 0.003). Complication rates were not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in 2-year patient-reported outcome scores in TKAs implanted using the KA versus an MA technique. The theoretical advantages of improved pain and function that form the basis of the design rationale of KA were not observed in this study. Currently, it is unknown whether the alterations in component alignment seen with KA will compromise long-term survivorship of TKA. In this study, we were unable to demonstrate an advantage to KA in terms of pain or function that would justify this risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Verification of in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ patient-specific instrumentation in total knee replacement using pin-less computer navigation

PURPOSE

Accurate component alignment in total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the important factors in determining long-term survivorship. This has been achieved by conventional jigs, computer-assisted technology (CAS) and more recently patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ PSI using validated pin-less computer navigation system.

METHOD

Twenty consecutive selected patients that fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent TKR using PSI. Coronal alignment, posterior slope, resection thickness and femoral sagittal alignment were recorded using pin-less navigation. The position of the actual cutting block was appropriately adjusted prior to proceeding to definitive resections.

RESULTS

The coronal alignment using PSI without the assistance of navigation would have resulted in 14 (70 %) within ±3°, 11 (55 %) within ±2° and 6 (30 %) outside acceptable alignment. Thirty-five percentage of proposed femur sagittal alignment and 55 % of posterior tibial slope were achieved within ±3°. Components size was accurately predicted in 95 % of femurs and 90 % of tibia.

CONCLUSION

The purported advantages in restoring alignments using Trumatch™ PSI alone over standard equipment are debatable. However, it predicts sizing well, and femoral coronal alignment is reasonable. Combining Trumatch™ PSI with CAS will allow in vivo verification and necessary corrections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Meta-Analysis of Outcomes of a Single-Radius Versus Multi-Radius Femoral Design in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Although the single-radius (SR) femoral design is known to have theoretical advantages in many aspects, studies of clinical outcomes that compare the SR with the multiple-radius (MR) femoral design are controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to address the hypothesis that a SR femoral design in primary total knee arthroplasty improves patient outcomes.

METHODS

The meta-analysis identified 15 articles reporting the clinical outcomes of 2212 knee replacements using the SR (n = 948) compared with the multiradius (MR; n = 1361) femoral design. Comparing SR with MR, we examined the Knee Society Score for the knee (KSS-knee), KSS-function, knee flexion, range of motion, complications, isometric peak torque of knee, and survival rate.

RESULTS

The range of motion of SR knees was lower than that of MR knees. No differences were found in the analyses of KSS-knee, KSS-function, knee flexion, complications, isometric peak torque of the knee, and survival rate.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis does not provide clinical support for the previously reported theoretical advantages of the SR implant design.

[Total knee arthroplasty in 2014 : Results, expectations, and complications]

BACKGROUND

Aseptic loosening seems to have become a minor problem in total knee arthroplasty. In contrast to that, new challenges are defined by changing patients' expectations. Beside reduction of pain and improving mobility, modern implants should not be noticed as such and should not limit sports activities.

OBJECTIVES

In this paper, a summary of the development and the current situation of total knee arthroplasty (e.g., implantation numbers, hospitality, operation time, and infection rates) are provided. The data are compared in an international context. In addition, current trends and developments from recent years are shown and rated according to the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The paper is based on a literature search (PubMed) and analyses of published official statistical data and expert recommendations.

RESULTS

Implantation numbers have been declining gradually in Germany since 2009. In 2013, 127,077 total knee arthroplasties were implanted. In contrast, the number of revision operations has increased gradually during the last decade. In addition, hospital stay and operation time have declined.

CONCLUSION

The development of implants, instruments, and operation techniques results from changing patients' expectations. All innovations must be compared against the results of well-proven techniques. The arthroplasty register may be an instrument to evaluate the results of new techniques and implants in a broad clinical application in terms of survival.

What is the optimal alignment of the tibial and femoral components in knee arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Surgeon-dependent factors such as optimal implant alignment are thought to play a significant role in outcome following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Exact definitions and references for optimal alignment are, however, still being debated. This overview of the literature describes different definitions of component alignment following primary TKA for (1) tibiofemoral alignment in the AP plane, (2) tibial and femoral component placement in the AP plane, (3) tibial and femoral component placement in the sagittal plane, and (4) rotational alignment of tibial and femoral components and their role in outcome and implant survival.

METHODS

We performed a literature search for original and review articles on implant positioning following primary TKA. Definitions for coronal, sagittal, and rotational placement of femoral and tibial components were summarized and the influence of positioning on survival and functional outcome was considered.

RESULTS

Many definitions exist when evaluating placement of femoral and tibial components. Implant alignment plays a role in both survival and functional outcome following primary TKA, as component malalignment can lead to increased failure rates, maltracking, and knee pain.

INTERPRETATION

Based on currently available evidence, surgeons should aim for optimal alignment of tibial and femoral components when performing TKA.

Patient specific implants: scope for the future

"Patient Specific" technology introduced in last 5 years, slowly gained popularity but has currently plateaued. We have a number of studies on patient specific instruments where they have been compared with conventional jigs in total knee arthroplasty and reported to have no clear additional benefits. This review discusses their intraoperative and postoperative advantages/disadvantages and cost effectiveness and provides a synopsis in light of current literature. Patient specific implants are not freely available yet, and there is no scientific literature reporting on their use in clinical practice.

Mechanical, Anatomical, and Kinematic Axis in TKA: Concepts and Practical Applications

Successful total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has often been based on the restoration of the knee to neutral alignment postoperatively. Numerous reports have linked malaligned TKA components to increased wear, poor functional outcomes, and failure. There have been many different alignment philosophies and surgical techniques that have been established to attain the goal of proper alignment, which includes such techniques as computerized navigation, and custom cutting guides. In addition, these methods could potentially have the added benefit of leading to improved functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. In this report, we have reviewed and analyzed recent reports concerning mechanical, anatomic, and kinematic axis/alignment schemes used in total knee arthroplasty.

Intra- and post-operative accuracy assessments of two different patient-specific instrumentation systems for total knee replacement

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess and compare the accuracy of two different patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems for total knee replacement, both intra-operatively for bone preparation and post-operatively for final component alignment.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were treated according to a computer tomography (CT)-based PSI system (group A) and 25 to a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/X-ray-based system (group B). Alignments on the three anatomical planes and resection thickness at the cutting blocks and at the resulting bone cuts were recorded intra-operatively by a standard surgical navigation system. Alignments of the prosthetic components and mechanical axis were also measured post-operatively on radiographs. These measurements at both the femur and tibia were compared with those of the corresponding pre-operative planning, considering discrepancies larger than 3° as outliers.

RESULTS

In both groups, the mean absolute differences between pre-operatively planned alignments and corresponding intra- and post-operative measurements ranged from a minimum of 1.2° to a maximum of 2.9° in all three anatomical planes. In both groups and in both femur and tibia, the plane with the smallest percentage of outliers was the coronal, maximum 17%. The comparison between two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.02) in the femoral sagittal plane, where group B showed smaller alignment discrepancies at the cutting blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PSI systems showed good alignments in the coronal plane in all stages. For a few measurements, a better performance was observed in the MRI/X-ray-based system than in the CT-based system.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Design and kinematics in total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Posterior stabilised (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design development that focused on restoring normal knee kinematics was followed by the introduction of reason-guided motion designs. Although all PS fixed-bearing knee designs were thought to have similar kinematics, reports show they have differing incidences and magnitudes of posterior femoral rollback and axial rotation. In this retrospective comparative study between two guided-motion total knee systems, we hypothesised that kinematic pattern has an influence on clinical and functional outcomes.

METHODS

This study represents the continuation of a previously reported clinical and kinematics analysis. We retrospectively reviewed 347 patients treated with two different TKA designs: Scorpio NRG (Stryker Orthopedics) and Journey Bi-Cruciate Stabilised (BCS) knee system (Smith & Nephew). Two hundred and eighty-one patients were assessed clinically. Patients were divided into groups according to implanted TKA. Clinical evaluation with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire was performed. Fifteen Scorpio NRG and 16 Journey BCS patients underwent video fluoroscopy during stair climbing, chair rising/sitting and step up/down at six months of follow-up.

RESULTS

At an average 29 months of clinical follow-up, patients with Journey BCS TKAs reported better clinical results. Stiffness was more frequently reported in the Journey group (5.2 % vs 1.2 %), whereas anterior knee pain was observed in the Scorpio NRG group (1.9 %) only. Both prosthetic models reported different posterior translation of the medial and lateral contact points (CP) in all analysed motor tasks during knee flexion (BCS 10-18 mm; NRG Scorpio 2-3 mm). Both designs produced progressive external rotation of the femoral component relative to the tibia during flexion.

CONCLUSIONS

Journey BCS showed statistically significant better KOOS results. The higher posterior femoral rollback observed in the kinematic assessment of this design, associated with a better patellofemoral design, may be the reason for better clinical outcome. The reported cases of stiffness and anterolateral joint pain could be attributed to excessive medial and lateral tibiofemoral posterior translation. The NRG group demonstrated good axial rotation, but this was not coupled with physiological kinematic patterns. Patellofemoral pain can be explained by a less friendly femoral-groove design. TKA clinical-functional outcome and complications were highly influenced by the bearing geometry and kinematic pattern of prosthetic designs.

Patient-specific modelling of bone and bone-implant systems: the challenges

In the past three decades, finite element (FE) modelling has provided considerable understanding to the area of musculoskeletal biomechanics. However, most of this understanding has been generated using generic, standardised or idealised models. Patient-specific modelling (PSM) is almost never used for making clinical decisions. Imaging technologies have made it possible to create patient-specific geometries and FE meshes for modelling. While these have brought us closer to PSM, several challenges associated with the definition of material properties, loads, boundary conditions and interaction between components still need to be overcome. This study reviews the current status of PSM with respect to defining material behaviour and prescribing boundary conditions and interactions. With regard to the constitutive modelling of bone, it is seen that imaging is being increasingly used to define elastic properties (isotropic as well as anisotropic). However, the post-elastic and time-dependent behaviour, important for several modelling situations, is mostly obtained from in vitro experiments. Strain-based plasticity, not commonly available in FE codes, appears to have the potential of reducing an element of patient-specificity in modelling the yielding behaviour of bone. PSM of real boundary conditions that include muscles and ligaments continues to remain a challenge; many clinically relevant questions can be, however, answered without their inclusion. Simulation techniques to undertake PSM of interactions between bone and uncemented implants are available. Interference fit employed in both joint replacement fracture treatments induces considerable preload whose inclusion in models is important for the prediction of interface behaviour.