A safe transition to a more personalized alignment in total knee arthroplasty: the importance of a “safe zone” concept

One long-held tenet of total knee arthroplasty is that implant durability is maximized when postoperative limb alignment is corrected to 0° ± 3° relative to the mechanical axis. Recently, substantial health-care resources have been devoted to computer navigation systems that allow surgeons to more often achieve that alignment. We hypothesized that a postoperative mechanical axis of 0° ± 3° would result in better long-term survival of total knee arthroplasty implants as compared with that in a group of outliers. Clinical and radiographic data were reviewed retrospectively to determine the fifteen-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate following 398 primary total knee arthroplasties performed with cement in 280 patients from 1985 to 1990. Preoperatively, most knees were in varus mechanical alignment (mean and standard deviation, 6° ± 8.8° of varus [range, 30° of varus to 22° of valgus]), whereas postoperatively most knees were corrected to neutral (mean and standard deviation, 0° ± 2.8° [range, 8° of varus to 9° of valgus]). Postoperatively, we defined a mechanically aligned group of 292 knees (with a mechanical axis of 0° ± 3°) and an outlier group of 106 knees (with a mechanical axis of beyond 0° ± 3°). At the time of the latest follow-up, forty-five (15.4%) of the 292 implants in the mechanically aligned group had been revised for any reason, compared with fourteen (13%) of the 106 implants in the outlier group (p = 0.88); twenty-seven (9.2%) of the 292 implants in the mechanically aligned group had been revised because of aseptic loosening, mechanical failure, wear, or patellar problems, compared with eight (7.5%) of the 106 implants in the outlier group (p = 0.88); and seventeen (5.8%) of the 292 implants in the mechanically aligned group had been revised because of aseptic loosening, mechanical failure, or wear, compared with four (3.8%) of the 106 implants in the outlier group (p = 0.49). A postoperative mechanical axis of 0° ± 3° did not improve the fifteen-year implant survival rate following these 398 modern total knee arthroplasties. We believe that describing alignment as a dichotomous variable (aligned versus malaligned) on the basis of a mechanical axis goal of 0° ± 3° is of little practical value for predicting the durability of modern total knee arthroplasty implants.

Kinematically aligned TKA restores function by aligning the femoral and tibial components to the normal or prearthritic joint lines of the knee. However, aligning the components to the joint lines of the normal knee also aligns the tibial component in varus, creating concern that varus alignment might result in poor function and early catastrophic failure.

In spite of improvements in implant designs and surgical precision, functional outcomes of mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MA TKA) have plateaued. This suggests probable technical intrinsic limitations that few alternate more anatomical recently promoted surgical techniques are trying to solve. This review aims at (1) classifying the different options to frontally align TKA implants, (2) at comparing their safety and efficacy with the one from MA TKAs, therefore answering the following questions: does alternative techniques to position TKA improve functional outcomes of TKA (question 1)? Is there any pathoanatomy not suitable for kinematic implantation of a TKA (question 2)? A systematic review of the existing literature utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar search engines was performed in February 2017. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last ten years in either English or French were reviewed. We identified 569 reports, of which 13 met our eligibility criteria. Four alternative techniques to position a TKA are challenging the traditional MA technique: anatomic (AA), adjusted mechanical (aMA), kinematic (KA), and restricted kinematic (rKA) alignment techniques. Regarding osteoarthritic patients with slight to mid constitutional knee frontal deformity, the KA technique enables a faster recovery and generally generates higher functional TKA outcomes than the MA technique. Kinematic alignment for TKA is a new attractive technique for TKA at early to mid-term, but need longer follow-up in order to assess its true value. It is probable that some forms of pathoanatomy might affect longer-term clinical outcomes of KA TKA and make the rKA technique or additional surgical corrections (realignment osteotomy, retinacular ligament reconstruction etc.) relevant for this sub-group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed to define the best indication of each alternative surgical technique for TKA. Level I for question 1 (systematic review of Level I studies), level 4 for question 2.