Samuel J MacDessi1,2,3,3, Richard J Allom4, Will Griffiths-Jones5,6, Darren B Chen5,4, Jil A Wood4, Johan Bellemans5,7. 1. CPAK Research Group, Suite 201, 131 Princes Highway, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia. samuelmacdessi@sydneyknee.com.au. 2. Clinical Sciences (WR Pitney) Building, St George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, St George Hospital, Short Street, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia. samuelmacdessi@sydneyknee.com.au. 3. Sydney Knee Specialists, Suite 201, 131 Princes Highway, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia. samuelmacdessi@sydneyknee.com.au. 4. Sydney Knee Specialists, Suite 201, 131 Princes Highway, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia. 5. CPAK Research Group, Suite 201, 131 Princes Highway, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia. 6. North Devon District Hospital, Raleigh Park, Barnstaple, EX31 4JB, UK. 7. University Hasselt, ZOL Hospitals Genk, ArthroClinic Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore native soft tissue laxities while limiting alignment extremes that risk prosthetic failure. However, there is no consensus where restricted boundaries (RB) should be set. This study aims to determine the proportion of limbs in which constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO) would be restored with various RB scenarios, to inform decision making in rKA TKA. METHODS: The mechanical hip-knee-ankle (mHKA) angle, arithmetic hip-knee-ankle (aHKA) angle, lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were measured on radiographs of 500 normal knees. Incrementally wider RBs were then applied. The proportion of limbs within each increment was determined when RBs were applied only to HKA, or to HKA, LDFA and MPTA together. In addition, the proportion of limbs within published adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA) and rKA protocols were determined, as well as those within one, two and three standard deviations of the means for HKA, LDFA and MPTA. RESULTS: When restrictions to mHKA alone were applied, 74.0% and 97.8% of knees were captured with boundaries of ± 3° and ± 6° respectively. However, when the same boundaries to HKA were also applied to MPTA and LDFA, 36.2% and 91.0% of knees were captured respectively, highlighting the limiting effect that JLO has on restoration of normal knee phenotypes. When comparing previously published boundaries, aMA of 0° ± 3° captured 36.2%; rKA of 0° ± 3 for HKA and 85° to 95° for LDFA/MPTA captured 67.8%; rKA of - 5° to 4° HKA and 86°-93° for LDFA/MPTA captured 63%; and rKA of - 6° to + 3° for HKA and 84°-93° for LDFA/MPTA captured 85.4%. CONCLUSION: The greatest proportions of normal knee phenotypes were captured with boundaries that were centred around population means for HKA and JLO. Further, these findings demonstrate that restricting the JLO has a significant limiting influence on restoration of normal knee phenotypes beyond that of restricting HKA alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore native soft tissue laxities while limiting alignment extremes that risk prosthetic failure. However, there is no consensus where restricted boundaries (RB) should be set. This study aims to determine the proportion of limbs in which constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO) would be restored with various RB scenarios, to inform decision making in rKA TKA. METHODS: The mechanical hip-knee-ankle (mHKA) angle, arithmetic hip-knee-ankle (aHKA) angle, lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were measured on radiographs of 500 normal knees. Incrementally wider RBs were then applied. The proportion of limbs within each increment was determined when RBs were applied only to HKA, or to HKA, LDFA and MPTA together. In addition, the proportion of limbs within published adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA) and rKA protocols were determined, as well as those within one, two and three standard deviations of the means for HKA, LDFA and MPTA. RESULTS: When restrictions to mHKA alone were applied, 74.0% and 97.8% of knees were captured with boundaries of ± 3° and ± 6° respectively. However, when the same boundaries to HKA were also applied to MPTA and LDFA, 36.2% and 91.0% of knees were captured respectively, highlighting the limiting effect that JLO has on restoration of normal knee phenotypes. When comparing previously published boundaries, aMA of 0° ± 3° captured 36.2%; rKA of 0° ± 3 for HKA and 85° to 95° for LDFA/MPTA captured 67.8%; rKA of - 5° to 4° HKA and 86°-93° for LDFA/MPTA captured 63%; and rKA of - 6° to + 3° for HKA and 84°-93° for LDFA/MPTA captured 85.4%. CONCLUSION: The greatest proportions of normal knee phenotypes were captured with boundaries that were centred around population means for HKA and JLO. Further, these findings demonstrate that restricting the JLO has a significant limiting influence on restoration of normal knee phenotypes beyond that of restricting HKA alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Justin S Chang; Bheeshma Ravi; Richard J Jenkinson; J Michael Paterson; Anjie Huang; Daniel Pincus Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: Peter J McEwen; Constantine E Dlaska; Ivana A Jovanovic; Kenji Doma; Benjamin J Brandon Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Hannes Vermue; Thomas Luyckx; Philip Winnock de Grave; Alexander Ryckaert; Anne-Sophie Cools; Nicolas Himpe; Jan Victor Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 4.114