Sagittal femoral condylar shape varies along a continuum from spherical to ovoid: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Enhancing soft tissue balance: Evaluating robotic-assisted functional positioning in varus knees across flexion and extension with quantitative sensor-guided technology

PURPOSE

Functional implant positioning (FIP) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an evolution of kinematic alignment based on preoperative CT scan and robotic-assisted technology. This study aimed to assess the ligament balancing of image-based robotic-assisted TKA in extension, mid-flexion and flexion with an FIP using intraoperative sensor-guided technology. The hypothesis was that image-based robotic-assisted TKA performed by FIP would achieve ligament balancing all along the arc of knee flexion.

METHODS

This prospective monocentric study included 47 consecutive patients with varus knees undergoing image-based robotic-assisted TKA performed with FIP. After robotic-assisted bone cuts, trial components were inserted, and soft tissue balance was assessed using sensor-guided technology at 10°, 45° and 90° of knee flexion. A mediolateral balanced knee was defined by an intercompartmental pressure difference (ICPD) ≤ 15 lbf and medial and lateral compartment pressure ≤60 lbf. The mean age was 71.6 years old ±6.7, the mean BMI was 29.0 kg/m2 ± 4.9 and the mean preoperative HKA was 174° ± 5 [159; 183].

RESULTS

The mean postoperative knee alignment was 177.0° ± 2.2° [172; 181]. There were 93.6% of balanced knees (n = 44) at 10 and 90° of knee flexion versus 76.6% (n = 36) at 45° of knee flexion with a significant difference (p = 0.014). Median ICPD at 10, 45 and 90° of knee flexion were, respectively, 7.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9), 11.0 (IQR: 9.5) and 8.0 (IQR: 9.0). Pairwise analyses revealed differences for ICPD at 45° versus ICPD at 10° (p = 0.003) and ICPD at 90° versus ICPD at 45° (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

FIP with an image-based robotic-assisted system allowed the restoration of a well-balanced knee at 10° and 90° of flexion in varus knees. Nevertheless, some discrepancies occurred in midflexion, and more work is needed to understand ligament behaviour all along the arc of knee flexion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Increased Femoral Component Flexion and No Difference in Slope in Robotic- versus Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty When Targeting Mechanical Alignment

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming popular due to better precision, when compared with other instrumentation. Although RAS has been validated in comparison with computer-assisted surgery (CAS), data from clinical settings comparing these two techniques are lacking. This is especially the case for sagittal alignment. Whereas pure mechanical alignment (MA) aims for 0 to 3 degrees of flexion of the femoral component and 3° of posterior slope for the tibial component, adjusted MA (aMA) mostly used with RAS allows for flexing of the femoral component for downsizing and increase of slope for an increase of the flexion gap. In the present study, we compared sagittal alignment after TKA using RAS with aMA and CAS targeting MA, which has been the standard in the center for more than 10 years. We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing TKA in a single center. Femoral component flexion and tibial slope were compared for both techniques. In 140 patients, 68 CAS and 72 RAS, we found no difference in tibial slope (p = 0.661), 1° median femoral component flexion (p = 0.023), and no difference in outliers (femur, p = 0.276, tibia, p = 0.289). RAS slightly increases femoral component flexion, but has no influence on tibial slope, when compared with CAS in TKA. If MA is the target, RAS provides no benefit over CAS for achieving the targeted sagittal alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  Level III retrospective study.

Definitions and consequences of current alignment techniques and phenotypes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) - there is no winner yet

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been extensively documented and it was attributed to numerous factors. In recent years, significant focus has been directed towards implant alignment and stability as potential causes and solutions to this issue. Surgeons are now exploring a more personalized approach to TKA, recognizing the importance of thoroughly understanding each individual patient's anatomy and functional morphology. A more comprehensive preoperative analysis of alignment and knee morphology is essential to address the unresolved questions in knee arthroplasty effectively. The crucial task of determining the most appropriate alignment strategy for each patient arises, given the substantial variability in bone resection resulting from the interplay of phenotype and the alignment strategy chosen. This review aims to comprehensively present the definitions of different alignment techniques in all planes and discuss the consequences dependent on knee phenotypes.Level of evidence V.

Custom total knee arthroplasty combined with personalised alignment grants 94% patient satisfaction at minimum follow-up of 2 years

PURPOSE

The purpose was to report detailed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction rates for computed tomography (CT)-based custom TKA at minimum follow-up of 2 years. The hypothesis was that custom TKA combined with 'personalised alignment' would yield equivalent or better PROMs compared to values reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on off-the-shelf (OTS) TKA.

METHODS

Of an initial cohort of 150 custom TKAs, four died (unrelated to surgery), one required a revision, and five refused participation, leaving 140 patients for analysis. Patients completed pre- and post-operative PROMs (Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC)) as well as overall level of satisfaction. Proportions that attained a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were calculated for OKS and FJS. Clinical findings were compared to the average scores reported for PROMs in recent systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on OTS TKA. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the clinical findings as means, standard deviations (SD) and ranges, or numbers and percentages.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up 33.5 ± 4.5 months, 94% (135/143) were either satisfied or very satisfied. Proportions that achieved PASS were 89% for OKS (120/135), and 85% for FJS (118/139). Median OKS, WOMAC and KOOS Symptoms and Pain scores were all within the 4th quartile of medians reported in systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum follow-up of two years following custom TKA combined with 'personalised alignment', 94% of patients were either satisfied or very satisfied, and the PASS criteria were achieved in 89% for OKS and 85% for FJS, all of which compare favourably to published outcomes of OTS TKA. Direct comparisons to the literature may not be appropriate, however, considering the heterogeneity of patient demographics and alignment techniques. Randomised controlled trials with sufficient statistical power are needed to corroborate these findings and generalise them to unselected TKA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective cohort study.