Kinematically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Medial Pivot Knee Prosthesis Enhances Medial Pivot Motion: A Comparative Kinematic Study With Mechanically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty

Sparse and inconsistent reporting of pre- and post-operative radiographic angles of total knee arthroplasty using true unrestricted kinematic alignment: An umbrella review and secondary meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on pre- and post-operative radiographic angles (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and hip-knee-ankle [HKA] angle) of unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Two authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, that reported on TKA outcomes using unrestricted kinematic alignment. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses was independently assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). The effect size with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for radiographic angles was extracted from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The characteristics of clinical studies included in systematic reviews were listed and tabulated. Pre- and post-operative MPTA, LDFA and HKA angles were summarised using meta-analytic random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nineteen records were eligible for data extraction. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses included 44 clinical studies, of which 31 were on unrestricted kinematic alignment and 13 were on restricted versions of kinematic alignment. None of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses fulfiled all seven critical AMSTAR-2 domains. Few comparative studies reported both pre- and post-operative angles (LDFA, n = 3; MPTA, n = 4; and HKA angle, n = 10). Mean pre- and post-operative LDFAs were 88.0° (range, 83-94°) and 88.0° (range, 80-96°) for the kinematic alignment group, and 88.2° (range, 83-95°) and 90.2° (range, 84-97°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative MPTAs were 86.0° (range, 78-93°) and 87.1° (range, 78-94°) for the kinematic alignment group and 86.4° (range, 77-94°) and 89.6° (range, 84-95°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative HKA angles were -3.3° (range, -24° to 24°) and -0.3° (range, -10° to 8°) for the kinematic alignment group and -6.9° (range, -25° to 7°) and -0.9° (range, -8° to 7°) for the mechanical alignment group.

CONCLUSION

Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses that report outcomes of TKA using kinematic alignment do not distinguish between the different versions of kinematic alignment. The clinical studies included in systematic reviews are limited and inconsistent in their reporting of radiographic angles. Different alignment strategies are often grouped under the umbrella term of kinematic alignment, which contributes to conflicting reports, confusion and unresolved questions regarding the efficacy of true unrestricted kinematic alignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Kinematic versus mechanical alignment: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to review the currently available systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA).

Methods

A literature search was performed to obtain all systematic review and meta-analyses comparing KA to MA that included one or more randomised controlled trials. A total of 18 studies were obtained, three of which were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Studies were evaluated based on their meta-analysis methodology, appropriate inclusion criteria, the use of correct definitions of each alignment technique, and risk of bias.

Results

These 18 studies included between 3 and 14 RCTs in each study. From the perspective of study design, the majority of papers had low risk of bias. In contrast, most of these reviews had technical issues pertaining to study inclusion in their meta-analyses that would potentially compromise their conclusions. These included mixing time points in the analysis, duplicate inclusion of patients in a meta-analysis, inclusion of studies with incorrect definitions of KA, inclusion of studies performed with restricted kinematic alignment with the KA group, and inappropriate combination of studies with bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with studies with unilateral TKA.

Conclusions

The current literature is inadequate to determine if there is any advantage to KA compared to MA in TKA. Claims made in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the subject must be carefully scrutinised based not only on risk of bias but also on the included study populations, the surgical methodology of each underlying study, and the authors' understanding of the definitions of each alignment technique.

Level of Evidence

Level 1 based on this study being a systematic review with the inclusion of only systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

In vivo kinematic comparison of bi-cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty between mechanical alignment and functional alignment methods

Background/objective

This study aimed to clarify the kinematics of bi-cruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by comparing the mechanical alignment (MA) and functional alignment (FA) methods and to evaluate differences between the two alignment methods.

Methods

The in vivo kinematics of 20 MA TKA and 20 FA TKA knees were investigated under fluoroscopy during squatting using a two-to three-dimensional registration technique. Accordingly, knee flexion angle, axial rotational angle, varus-valgus angle, anteroposterior translation of the medial and lateral low contact points of the femoral component relative to the tibial component and kinematic pathway were evaluated.

Results

No difference in the knee flexion angle was observed between the MA and FA TKA groups. Femoral external rotation was observed in both groups and no significant difference was observed. Significant varus alignment from extension to early flexion range was observed in the FA TKA group. The posterior translation of the medial side was smaller in the FA TKA group than in the MA TKA group. Conversely, no significant difference in the anteroposterior translation of the lateral side was observed. In the kinematic pathway, a medial pivot motion from 0° to 20° of flexion and a lateral pivot motion beyond 20° of flexion were observed in both groups.

Conclusion

During squatting in BCR TKA, the FA TKA group significantly showed varus alignment and smaller posterior translation of the medial side than the MA TKA group from extension to early flexion range.

Kinematic and mechanical alignments in total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis with ≥1-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Kinematic and mechanical alignment outcomes in total knee arthroplasty remain controversial. This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of total knee arthroplasty using kinematic and mechanical alignments.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies published before November 2022. The data of interest were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager V.5.4.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled trials and cohort studies involving 880 kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasties and 965 mechanical alignment total knee arthroplasties were included. In this meta-analysis, the kinematic alignment group achieved better knee joint function scores, including the Oxford Knee Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Knee Society Score, and better flexion angles. No statistical differences were detected in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, extension angle, Forgotten Joint Score, European Quality of Life five-dimension measure, hip-knee-ankle angle, or complications between the kinematic and mechanical alignment groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty provides clinical benefits in terms of the Oxford Knee Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Society Score (knee), Knee Society Score (function), and better flexion angles. In addition, kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty led to similar clinical outcomes as mechanical alignment total knee arthroplasty without increasing complications.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/CRD42022373227.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcomes and innovations in Total Knee Arthroplasty: KINEMATIC, PERSONALIZED KNEE vs. CONVENTIONAL

Background

Kinematic alignment is an emerging approach for total knee arthroplasty, with the aim to restore patient's individual pre-arthritic joint kinematics. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the kinematic alignment with the conventional mechanical alignment for total knee arthroplasty.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus on June 2, 2024. We screened the retrieved studies for eligibility. Then extracted the data from the included studies, and then pooled the data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using Review Manager Software (ver. 3.5).

Results

There was no significant difference between KA and MA in the different reported scores: combined KSS score at 6 months (P = 0.23) and 1 years (P = 0.60), KSS Patient satisfaction (P = 0.33), KSS function score (P = 0.07), Oxford score at 6 months (P = 0.45) and 2 years (P = 0.41), KOOS score (P = 0.26). Moreover, there was statistically significant difference in range of motion for flexion and extension at 1 and 2 years, incision length, the length of hospital stay, or the duration of surgery.

Conclusion

Although kinematic alignment showed slightly better clinical outcomes than mechanical alignment, the difference between the two techniques is not statistically significant.

Tibial insert design significantly alters knee kinematics using a single cruciate-retaining total knee implant

Aims

Patient dissatisfaction is not uncommon following primary total knee arthroplasty. One proposed method to alleviate this is by improving knee kinematics. Therefore, we aimed to answer the following research question: are there significant differences in knee kinematics based on the design of the tibial insert (cruciate-retaining (CR), ultra-congruent (UC), or medial congruent (MC))?

Methods

Overall, 15 cadaveric knee joints were examined with a CR implant with three different tibial inserts (CR, UC, and MC) using an established knee joint simulator. The effects on coronal alignment, medial and lateral femoral roll back, femorotibial rotation, bony rotations (femur, tibia, and patella), and patellofemoral length ratios were determined.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found regarding coronal alignment (p = 0.087 to p = 0.832). The medial congruent insert demonstrated restricted femoral roll back (mean medial 37.57 mm; lateral 36.34 mm), while the CR insert demonstrated the greatest roll back (medial 42.21 mm; lateral 37.88 mm; p < 0.001, respectively). Femorotibial rotation was greatest with the CR insert with 2.45° (SD 4.75°), then the UC insert with 1.31° (SD 4.15°; p < 0.001), and lowest with the medial congruent insert with 0.8° (SD 4.24°; p < 0.001). The most pronounced patella shift, but lowest patellar rotation, was noted with the CR insert.

Conclusion

The MC insert demonstrated the highest level of constraint of these inserts. Femoral roll back, femorotibial rotation, and single bony rotations were lowest with the MC insert. The patella showed less shifting with the MC insert, but there was significantly increased rotation. While the medial congruent insert was found to have highest constraint, it remains uncertain if this implant recreates native knee kinematics or if this will result in improved patient satisfaction.

Superiority of kinematic alignment over mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty during medium- to long-term follow-up: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

To compare and determine the reliability and conclusiveness of the medium- and long-term efficacy in terms of patient-reported outcome measures and the risk of revisions or reoperations (RRRs) of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database Library to identify relevant literature. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published before July 2023 were included. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and RRR were compared. Additionally, OKS and RRR were subjected to a trial sequential analysis.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 572 knees were identified. The pooled analysis of the included studies demonstrated that KA showed better medium-term WOMAC and OKS (mean difference [MD] = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.52 to -2.99, p < 0.05 and MD = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.05-2.15, p < 0.05), respectively), but no significant differences were observed in the long-term follow-up (MD = 2.1, 95% CI: -3.21 to 7.31, not significant [n.s.] and MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -2.43 to 2.46, n.s., respectively). FJS (standardised MD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.19, n.s.) and RRR (risk ratio = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.74, n.s.) showed no significant intergroup differences (n.s.). The evidence quality ranged from moderate to high, and the trial sequential analysis indicated the need for additional high-quality RCTs to draw more conclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

KA showed better medium-term WOMAC and OKS, while KA and MA had similar FJS without increasing the RRR in medium- and long-term follow-up. Further research is needed for more conclusive results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II (meta-analyses).

Higher satisfaction and function scores in restricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment with medial pivot design total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and medial pivot (MP) knee designs already showed superior outcomes in independent comparative studies. The objective of this study was to assess whether rKA with MP TKA provides better clinical and functional outcomes compared to mechanical alignment (MA) with MP TKA.

METHODS

This is a randomised, parallel two group study involving a total of 98 patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly allocated to either rKA or MA TKA procedures conducted with a MP prothesis using patient-specific instruments between 2017 and 2020. Final follow-up was at 2 years postoperatively. Demographic data and clinical and functional scores (Oxford knee score, knee society score [KSS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], forgotten joint score [FJS]) were collected and compared preoperative, 1 year postoperative and 2 years postoperative. Coronal plane alignment of the knee and functional knee phenotype classification were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (rKA) and 51 patients (MA) were included in final analysis. Superior joint awareness scores (FJS) were found at 1 year postoperative for rKA (62.2 vs. 52.4, p = 0.04). KSS subscores (expectation score, satisfaction score) improved with rKA with significant differences at both 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Major differences between rKA and MA were found in subgroup analysis of varus and neutral CPAK phenotypes. Both 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, FJS was significantly better in KA compared with MA in varus CPAK phenotypes (63.1 vs. 44.9, p = 0.03; 71.1 vs. 46.0, p = 0.005). Further clinical and functional scores showed improvement in the varus CPAK phenotypes with predominantly significant improvement in the expectation and satisfaction KSS subscores. No significant differences were found in the comparison of rKA and MA in neutral CPAK phenotypes.

CONCLUSION

The rKA of MP TKA design shows superior patient satisfaction and self-reported function when compared to MA MP TKA. Furthermore, rKA MP TKA shows superior joint awareness at early postoperative stage. The most important clinical relevance of this study is the clear superiority of rKA in varus phenotypes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Significantly better precision with new machine learning versus manual image registration software in processing images from single-plane fluoroscopy to determine tibiofemoral kinematics following total knee replacement

One common method to determine tibiofemoral kinematics following total knee replacement (TKR) is to capture single-plane fluoroscopic images of a patient activity and determine anterior-posterior (AP) positions of the femoral condyles and internal-external (IE) tibial rotation. Although JointTrack is widely used to analyze such images, precision (i.e. repeatability) in determining AP positions and IE tibial rotations using the two publicly available programs has never been quantified. The objectives were to determine the precision and reproducibility of results using both programs. Fluoroscopic images of 16 patients who performed a weight-bearing deep knee bend following TKR were analyzed. JointTrack Manual (JTM) and JointTrack Machine Learning (JTML) were used to perform 3D model-to-2D image registration after which AP positions of the femoral condyles and IE tibial rotations were determined. Precision in AP positions and IE rotations was quantified. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for both repeatability (i.e. intraobserver) and reproducibility (i.e. interobserver) also were determined. Precision using JTM was worse than JTML for AP positions of the medial and lateral femoral condyles (1.0 mm and 0.9 mm vs 0.3 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). For IE tibial rotation, precision also was worse using JTM versus JTML (1.1º vs 0.9°, p = 0.010). ICC values for JTML indicated good to excellent agreement (range: 0.82-0.98) whereas ICC values for JTM indicated only moderate to good agreement (range: 0.58-0.88). JTML has better precision and reproducibility than JTM and also is more efficient to use. Therefore, use of JTML over JTM is strongly recommended.

Medial Ball-in-Socket Posterior Cruciate-Sacrificing Total Knee Arthroplasty: Clinical, Functional and Radiographic Evaluation of 100 Consecutive Implants

The number of performed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) operations is constantly growing. This study proposes an evaluation of a series of patients undergoing medial pivot (MP) TKA surgery from a subjective, clinical and biomechanical point of view. A consecutive series of 100 TKAs implanted in a single centre, by the same surgeon, with a medial parapatellar approach with the sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament and cemented components were evaluated. All patients underwent standardized radiographic and functional clinical evaluation, with standing antero-posterior, lateral and patellar axial views; pre-operatively and post-operatively at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months; and then annually. Results were evaluated using three different patient-related outcome measurement scores (PROMs): the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the new Knee Society Score (nKSS) and the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36). Excellent results in all treated knees were documented using the PROMs: the mean nKSS was 199.8, the mean KOOS was good to excellent in every subscale, and the mean was SF-36 82%. There were no cases of septic or aseptic loosening, vascular damage, neurological damage, or revision surgery for any reason. According to the experience gained, MP implants demonstrated excellent results, being clinically functional in both objective and subjective terms as well as radiographic evaluations, thus resulting in a winning strategy for obtaining a TKA that makes the patient satisfied and able to perform their daily life activities.

An early clinical comparative study on total knee arthroplasty with kinematic alignment using specific instruments versus mechanical alignment in varus knees

Background

The kinematic alignment technique, as one of the alignment options for total knee arthroplasty, has attracted increasing attention from orthopedic surgeons and has been increasingly performed in the most populous countries in the world. The purpose of this study is to explore and compare the early clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty with KA using specific instruments vs. mechanical alignment in our nation.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent unilateral total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis with varus deformity. Depending on the alignment method, patients were divided into a kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (KA-TKA) group and a mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MA-TKA) group. The hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle before and after surgery, the knee joint clinical score (KS-C), the knee joint functional score (KS-F) and the forgotten joint score (FJS) at 3 months and 2 years after surgery were recorded and statistically analyzed.

Results

A total of 126 patients were enrolled, including 65 in the KA-TKA group and 61 in the MA-TKA group. The mean follow-up period was 30.8 months. The postoperative HKA angle was not significantly different at the 2-year follow-up between the two groups (P > 0.05). The KS-C, KS-F and FJS scores in the KA-TKA group were higher than those in the MA-TKA group at 3 months after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). At the 2-year follow-up, the KS-C, KS-F and FJS scores in the KA-TKA group were higher than those in the MA-TKA group, and the difference in the KS-C and FJS scores was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent KA-TKA had a postoperative lower limb alignment similar to that of those who underwent MA-TKA. The clinical outcomes of KA-TKA were superior to those of MA-TKA in terms of clinical performance, knee function and subjective sensation up to 2 years after surgery.

Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in primary total knee arthroplasty: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The purpose of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials regarding the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty with KA and MA were included for the analysis.

Results

A total of 1112 participants were included in this study, including 559 participants with KA and 553 patients with MA. This study revealed that the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Society Score (knee and combined), and knee flexion range were better in the patients with kinematic alignment than in the mechanical alignment. In terms of radiological results, the femoral knee angle, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle, and joint line orientation angle were significantly different between the two techniques. Perioperatively, the walk distance before discharge was longer in the KA group than in the MA group. In contrast, other functional outcomes, radiological results, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complication rates were similar in both the kinematic and mechanical alignment groups.

Conclusions

The KA technique achieved better functional outcomes than the mechanical technique in terms of KSS (knee and combined), WOMAC scores, and knee flexion range.

PROSPERO trial registration number CRD42021264519. Date registration: July 28, 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03097-2.

Medial pivot versus (cam post) posterior stabilised total knee arthroplasty, systematic review and meta-analysis of 3837 knees

In the current literature, there is no consensus as to whether the medial pivot (MP) or posterior-stabilised (PS) knee provides the best result for the patient in the context of post-operative range of motion (ROM) and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The aim of this systematic review is to provide this equipoise with some clarity. We conducted this study following both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Studies comparing the MP and PS knees from all regions and written in any language were included. Twenty- one studies were included in this meta-analysis. They were prepared and analysed using Review Manager V5.0 [Computer Program] (RevMan5). We calculated the risk ratio to measure the treatment effect, taking the heterogeneity of the studies into consideration. Random-effect models were also utilised. MP knees were found to have a significant advantage over PS knees in terms of WOMAC score at the midterm follow up, and insignificant advantages over PS knees in terms of ROM and FJS at one and two years follow- up. Additionally, the PS knees demonstrated an in significantly higher Knee Society Score (KSS) at short and midterm follow up. In terms of ROM, KSS, OKS and FJS this meta-analysis suggests a non-significant advantages for the MP knee compared with the PS prothesis in the short term. The MP implant also showed a significantly superior WOMAC score at short-term follow-up. An extended follow-up period is required to evaluate whether the MP knee is superior than the PS in the long-term.