Du Hyun Ro1, Jong-Keun Kim1, Do Weon Lee1, Jangyun Lee1, Hyuk-Soo Han1, Myung Chul Lee2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: leemc@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeting residual varus alignment in total knee arthroplasty may be functionally beneficial to preoperative varus patients. METHODS: Bilateral TKA patients were enrolled. According to the postoperative hip-knee-ankle axis, patients were allocated into residual varus (3° ± 1°) alignment group or neutral (0° ± 1°) alignment group. Then, 1:2 propensity score matching was used to match preoperative variables. Finally, matched neutral (n = 45) and varus groups (n = 32) were followed-up for two years and compared. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes were range of motion (ROM), Knee Society knee score and function score, spatiotemporal gait parameters, dynamic alignment, knee flexion angle, knee adduction moment (KAM) and internal knee extension moment. RESULTS: At two years after surgery, the mean difference of WOMAC score was 0.3 (95% CI, [-3.1, 3.7]) between the two groups. All secondary outcomes, except KAM and dynamic alignment, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Residual varus alignment group showed increased KAM and maximum KAM was 19% higher (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Residual varus alignment showed no clinical benefits, and both groups of patients had a functionally identical knee gait biomechanics, except for increased KAM and varus alignment. The authors consider that even in patients with varus alignment, the first principle is still achieving neutral alignment, which is helpful for reducing the KAM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.
BACKGROUND: Targeting residual varus alignment in total knee arthroplasty may be functionally beneficial to preoperative varus patients. METHODS: Bilateral TKA patients were enrolled. According to the postoperative hip-knee-ankle axis, patients were allocated into residual varus (3° ± 1°) alignment group or neutral (0° ± 1°) alignment group. Then, 1:2 propensity score matching was used to match preoperative variables. Finally, matched neutral (n = 45) and varus groups (n = 32) were followed-up for two years and compared. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes were range of motion (ROM), Knee Society knee score and function score, spatiotemporal gait parameters, dynamic alignment, knee flexion angle, knee adduction moment (KAM) and internal knee extension moment. RESULTS: At two years after surgery, the mean difference of WOMAC score was 0.3 (95% CI, [-3.1, 3.7]) between the two groups. All secondary outcomes, except KAM and dynamic alignment, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Residual varus alignment group showed increased KAM and maximum KAM was 19% higher (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Residual varus alignment showed no clinical benefits, and both groups of patients had a functionally identical knee gait biomechanics, except for increased KAM and varus alignment. The authors consider that even in patients with varus alignment, the first principle is still achieving neutral alignment, which is helpful for reducing the KAM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.