Key concepts in total knee arthroplasty include restoration of limb alignment and soft-tissue balance. Although differences in balance have been reported amongst mechanical alignment (MA), kinematic alignment (KA) and functional alignment (FA) techniques, it remains unclear whether there are differences in gap imbalance or resection thicknesses when comparing different constitutional alignment subgroups. MA (measured resection technique), KA (matched resections technique) and FA (technique based on the restricted KA boundaries) were compared in 116 consecutive patients undergoing 137 robotic-assisted cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasties. The primary outcome was the proportion of balanced gaps (differential laxities ≤ 2mm) for extension, flexion, medial and lateral gap measurements. Manual pre-resection laxity measurements were obtained for MA and KA and manual post-resection measurements were obtained for FA in 10° and in 90° of knee flexion. Secondary outcomes were resection depths and implant alignment. All outcomes were analysed per constitutional coronal alignment and joint line obliquity subgroups. The proportions of balance in all four gap measurements were 54.7%, 66.4% and 96.5%, with MA, KA and FA, respectively. Across all constitutional alignment types, FA achieved the highest proportion of balance. MA resected the least amount of bone from the medial tibial plateau. KA had femoral components in most valgus and most internally rotated, tibial components in most varus and was the most bone-preserving for the posteromedial femoral condyle. FA had the most externally rotated femoral components and was most bone-preserving for the distal femoral resections. The study shows that implant alignment to the mechanical axis or joint line anatomy (equal resections) alone does not guarantee a balanced total knee arthroplasty. FA resulted in the highest proportion of balanced knees across all analysed subgroups. Future research will consider whether one alignment philosophy leads to superior outcomes for different constitutional alignment subgroups. Level II.
Read full abstract