Correcting for distal femoral asymmetry is necessary to determine postoperative alignment deviations from planned alignment of the femoral component

High variability exists in 3D leg alignment analysis, but underlying principles that might lead to agreement on a universal framework could be identified: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To (1) investigate the hypothesis that there is high variability in the reported methods to derive axes and joint orientations from three-dimensional (3D) bone models to (a) perform 3D knee-related leg alignment analysis and (b) define coordinate systems for the femur, tibia and leg and (2) identify underlying principles that might lead to agreement on a universal 3D leg alignment analysis framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature between January 2006 and June 2024 was performed. Articles explicitly reporting methods to derive axes and joint orientations from CT-based 3D bone models for alignment parameters and/or coordinate systems of the femur, tibia and leg were included. Study characteristics and reported methods were extracted and presented as a qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 93 studies were included. There was high variability in the reported methods to derive axes and joint orientations from 3D bone models. Nevertheless, the reported methods could be categorized into four groups, and several underlying principles of the four groups could be identified. Furthermore, the definitions of femoral and tibial coordinate systems were most frequently based on the mechanical axis (femoral, 13/19 [68%]; tibial, 13/26 [50%]) and a central medial-lateral axis (femoral, 16/19 [84%]; tibial, 12/26 [46%]); no leg coordinate system was reported. Interestingly, of the included studies that reported on leg alignment parameters (76/93, 82%), only a minority reported expressing these in a complete coordinate system (25/76, 33%).

CONCLUSION

There is high variability in 3D knee-related leg alignment analysis. Therefore, universal 3D reference values for alignment parameters cannot yet be defined, and comparison of alignment parameter values between different studies is impossible. However, several underlying principles to the reported methods were identified, which could serve to reach more agreement on a future universal 3D framework for leg alignment analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I (1).

Correcting for asymmetry of the proximal tibial epiphysis is warranted to determine postoperative alignment deviations in kinematic alignment from planned alignment of the tibial component on the native tibia

BACKGROUND

In total knee arthroplasty, unrestricted kinematic alignment aims to restore pre-arthritic lower limb alignment and joint lines. Joint line orientations of the contralateral healthy proximal tibia might be used to evaluate accuracy of tibial component alignment post-operatively if asymmetry is minimal. Our objective was to evaluate left-to-right asymmetry of the proximal tibial epiphysis in posterior tibial slope and varus-valgus orientation as related to unrestricted kinematic alignment principles.

METHODS

High resolution CT images (0.5 mm slice thickness) were acquired from bilateral lower limbs of 11 skeletally mature subjects with no skeletal abnormalities. Images were segmented to generate 3D tibia models. Asymmetry was quantified by differences in orientations required to shape-match the proximal epiphysis of the mirror 3D tibia model to the proximal epiphysis of the contralateral 3D tibia model.

FINDINGS

Systematic and random differences (i.e. mean ± standard deviation) in tibial slope and varus-valgus orientation were - 0.8° ± 1.2° and - 0.2° ± 0.8°, respectively. Ninety five percent confidence intervals on the means included 0° indicating that systematic differences were minimal.

INTERPRETATION

Since random differences due to asymmetry are substantial in relation to random surgical deviations from pre-arthritic joint lines previously reported, post-operative computer tomograms of the contralateral healthy tibia should not be used to directly assess accuracy of tibial component alignment on a group level without correcting for differences in tibial slope and varus-valgus orientation due to asymmetry.