Yoshinori Ishii1, Hideo Noguchi1, Junko Sato1, Ikuko Takahashi1, Hana Ishii2, Ryo Ishii3, Kei Ishii4, Shin-Ichi Toyabe5. 1. Ishii Orthopaedic & Rehabilitation Clinic, 1089 Shimo-Oshi, Gyoda, Saitama, 361-0037, Japan. 2. Kanazawa Medical University, School of Plastic Surgery, 1-1 Daigaku, Uchinada, Ishikawa, 920-0253, Japan. 3. Sado General Hospital, 161 Chikusa Sado, Niigata, 952-1209, Japan. 4. Iwate Prefectural Ninohe Hospital, 38 Horino, Ninohe, Iwate, 028-6193, Japan. 5. Niigata University Crisis Management Office, Niigata University Hospital, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1 Asahimachi Dori Niigata, Niigata, 951-8520, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess alignment for total knee arthroplasty, the center of the ankle has been used as the main reference point for the distal tibia; however, the true load-bearing mechanical axis should be determined as a line from the center of the femoral head to the lowest point of calcaneus. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the differences in alignment. METHODS: Patients with medial osteoarthritis who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty (Group A, center of ankle reference, or Group C, calcaneal contact reference) were recruited. We determined (1) the total number with calcaneal contact point lateral to the center of ankle and compared (2) percentage of displacement of the load-bearing axis at the level of the knee, (3) anatomical axis angle, (4) mechanical axis angle, and (5) tibial component angle. RESULTS: The study included 94 patients (128 knees), with the calcaneal contact reference point located lateral relative to the center of the ankle in 88.3% (113/128 knees). Using calcaneal contact point references, displacement of the load-bearing axis at the knee was greater (p < 0.0001, 38.7% vs 34.0%), and angles demonstrated significantly valgus alignment (p < 0.0001, 5.6° vs. 4.8° for anatomical axis angle, -3.0° vs. -4.2° for mechanical axis angle, and 89.9° vs. 88.6°for tibial component angle). CONCLUSIONS: Varus alignment measured by the ankle reference method might correspond to the neutral alignment by the amount of valgus alignment indicated by the calcaneal reference. Surgeons should take this into account when preoperative planning, performing intraoperative procedures, and during postoperative evaluation.
BACKGROUND: To assess alignment for total knee arthroplasty, the center of the ankle has been used as the main reference point for the distal tibia; however, the true load-bearing mechanical axis should be determined as a line from the center of the femoral head to the lowest point of calcaneus. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the differences in alignment. METHODS: Patients with medial osteoarthritis who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty (Group A, center of ankle reference, or Group C, calcaneal contact reference) were recruited. We determined (1) the total number with calcaneal contact point lateral to the center of ankle and compared (2) percentage of displacement of the load-bearing axis at the level of the knee, (3) anatomical axis angle, (4) mechanical axis angle, and (5) tibial component angle. RESULTS: The study included 94 patients (128 knees), with the calcaneal contact reference point located lateral relative to the center of the ankle in 88.3% (113/128 knees). Using calcaneal contact point references, displacement of the load-bearing axis at the knee was greater (p < 0.0001, 38.7% vs 34.0%), and angles demonstrated significantly valgus alignment (p < 0.0001, 5.6° vs. 4.8° for anatomical axis angle, -3.0° vs. -4.2° for mechanical axis angle, and 89.9° vs. 88.6°for tibial component angle). CONCLUSIONS: Varus alignment measured by the ankle reference method might correspond to the neutral alignment by the amount of valgus alignment indicated by the calcaneal reference. Surgeons should take this into account when preoperative planning, performing intraoperative procedures, and during postoperative evaluation.
Authors: Mohammad M Alzahrani; Thomas J Wood; Lyndsay E Somerville; James L Howard; Brent A Lanting; Edward M Vasarhelyi Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Rashid B Abu-Rajab; Angela H Deakin; Mohanasundaram Kandasami; Jennifer McGlynn; Frederic Picard; Andrew W G Kinninmonth Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Merrill A Ritter; Kenneth E Davis; John B Meding; Jeffery L Pierson; Michael E Berend; Robert A Malinzak Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 5.284