Does Kinematic Alignment Increase Polyethylene Wear Compared With Mechanically Aligned Components? A Wear Simulation Study

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).

Mechanical alignment tolerance of a cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis under gait loading—A finite element analysis

Component alignment is one of the most crucial factors affecting total knee arthroplasty’s clinical outcome and survival. This study aimed to investigate how coronal, sagittal, and transverse malalignment affects the mechanical behavior of the tibial insert and to determine a suitable alignment tolerance on the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes. A finite element model of a cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis was assembled with different joint alignments (−10°, −7°, −5°, −3°, 0°, 3°, 5°, 7°, 10°) to assess the effect of malalignment under gait loading. The results showed that varus or valgus, extension, internal rotation, and excessive external rotation malalignments increased the maximum Von Mises stress and contact pressure on the tibial insert. The mechanical alignment tolerance of the studied prosthesis on the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes was 3° varus to 3° valgus, 0°–10° flexion, and 0°–5° external rotation, respectively. This study suggests that each prosthesis should include a tolerance range for the joint alignment angle on the three planes, which may be used during surgical planning.