9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification : a new system for describing knee phenotypes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          A comprehensive classification for coronal lower limb alignment with predictive capabilities for knee balance would be beneficial in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This paper describes the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification and examines its utility in preoperative soft tissue balance prediction, comparing kinematic alignment (KA) to mechanical alignment (MA).

          Methods

          A radiological analysis of 500 healthy and 500 osteoarthritic (OA) knees was used to assess the applicability of the CPAK classification. CPAK comprises nine phenotypes based on the arithmetic HKA (aHKA) that estimates constitutional limb alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). Intraoperative balance was compared within each phenotype in a cohort of 138 computer-assisted TKAs randomized to KA or MA. Primary outcomes included descriptive analyses of healthy and OA groups per CPAK type, and comparison of balance at 10° of flexion within each type. Secondary outcomes assessed balance at 45° and 90° and bone recuts required to achieve final knee balance within each CPAK type.

          Results

          There was similar frequency distribution between healthy and arthritic groups across all CPAK types. The most common categories were Type II (39.2% healthy vs 32.2% OA), Type I (26.4% healthy vs 19.4% OA) and Type V (15.4% healthy vs 14.6% OA). CPAK Types VII, VIII, and IX were rare in both populations. Across all CPAK types, a greater proportion of KA TKAs achieved optimal balance compared to MA. This effect was largest, and statistically significant, in CPAK Types I (100% KA vs 15% MA; p < 0.001), Type II (78% KA vs 46% MA; p = 0.018). and Type IV (89% KA vs 0% MA; p < 0.001).

          Conclusion

          CPAK is a pragmatic, comprehensive classification for coronal knee alignment, based on constitutional alignment and JLO, that can be used in healthy and arthritic knees. CPAK identifies which knee phenotypes may benefit most from KA when optimization of soft tissue balance is prioritized. Further, it will allow for consistency of reporting in future studies.

          Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):329–337.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus.

          Most knee surgeons have believed during TKA neutral mechanical alignment should be restored. A number of patients may exist, however, for whom neutral mechanical alignment is abnormal. Patients with so-called "constitutional varus" knees have had varus alignment since they reached skeletal maturity. Restoring neutral alignment in these cases may in fact be abnormal and undesirable and would likely require some degree of medial soft tissue release to achieve neutral alignment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity.

            The axial alignment of the lower extremities of twenty-five normal male volunteers whose mean age was thirty years was studied using a standardized radiograph of the entire lower extremity. The extremities were found to be in a mean of 1.5 degrees (right) and 1.1 degrees (left) of varus angulation at the knee between the tibial and femoral mechanical axes. The transverse axis of the knee lacked a mean of 3.0 degrees (right) and 2.6 degrees (left) of being perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the tibia. The anatomical axis of the femur did not pass through the center of the knee.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up

              Summary Background Knee replacements are the mainstay of treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis and are effective. Given time, all knee replacements will fail and knowing when this failure might happen is important. We aimed to establish how long a knee replacement lasts. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for case series and cohort studies published from database inception until July 21, 2018. Articles reporting 15 year or greater survival of primary total knee replacement (TKR), unicondylar knee replacement (UKR), and patellofemoral replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Articles that reviewed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded. Survival and implant data were extracted, with all-cause survival of the knee replacement construct being the primary outcome. We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the data to be analysed separately. In the meta-analysis, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each data source at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, using a fixed-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018105188. Findings From 4363 references found by our initial search, we identified 33 case series in 30 eligible articles, which reported all-cause survival for 6490 TKRs (26 case series) and 742 UKRs (seven case series). No case series reporting on patellofemoral replacements met our inclusion criteria, and no case series reported 25 year survival for TKR. The estimated 25 year survival for UKR (based on one case series) was 72·0% (95% CI 58·0–95·0). Registries contributed 299 291 TKRs (47 series) and 7714 UKRs (five series). The pooled registry 25 year survival of TKRs (14 registries) was 82·3% (95% CI 81·3–83·2) and of UKRs (four registries) was 69·8% (67·6–72·1). Interpretation Our pooled registry data, which we believe to be more accurate than the case series data, shows that approximately 82% of TKRs last 25 years and 70% of UKRs last 25 years. These findings will be of use to patients and health-care providers; further information is required to predict exactly how long specific knee replacements will last. Funding The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Director, Consultant Surgeon
                Role: Director, Consultant Surgeon
                Role: Professor, Director
                Role: Director, Professor, Consultant Surgeon
                Role: Director, Consultant Surgeon
                Journal
                Bone Joint J
                Bone Joint J
                Bjj
                The Bone & Joint Journal
                The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery (London )
                2049-4394
                2049-4408
                February 2021
                1 February 2021
                : 103-B
                : 2
                : 329-337
                Affiliations
                [1 ]org-divisionCPAK Research Group , Sydney, Australia
                [2 ]org-divisionSydney Knee Specialists , org-divisionSt George Private Hospital , Kogarah, Australia
                [3 ]org-divisionSt George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales , Sydney, Australia
                [4 ]org-divisionNorth Devon District Hospital , Barnstaple, UK
                [5 ]org-divisionOrthopaedic Surgery , org-divisionUniversity of New South Wales, South Western Sydney Clinical School , Liverpool, NSW, Australia
                [6 ]org-divisionWhitlam Orthopaedic Research Group , org-divisionIngham Institute for Applied Medical Research , Liverpool, NSW, Australia
                [7 ]org-divisionDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery , org-divisionHasselt University, ZOL Hospitals , Genk, Belgium
                [8 ]org-divisionArthroClinic , Leuven, Belgium
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be sent to Samuel J. MacDessi. E-mail: samuelmacdessi@ 123456sydneyknee.com.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1578-7614
                Article
                BJJ-103B-329
                10.1302/0301-620X.103B2.BJJ-2020-1050.R1
                7954147
                33517740
                879fe8cc-5461-4b06-992b-dfdb02964f75
                © 2021 Author(s) et al.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                Categories
                Knee
                Total Blood Loss
                Oral Tranexamic Acid
                Randomized Controlled Trial
                Total Knee Arthroplasty
                Knee, knee
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                $2.00
                Sydney Knee Specialists, Sydney, Australia
                Knee
                J. Bellemans reports personal fees from Stryker, outside the submitted work. W. Griffiths-Jones reports personal fees from Stryker, outside the submitted work, and a patent pending (PCT/AU2018/000241). D. B. Chen reports fellowship funding from Smith and Nephew and Zimmer Biomet, consulting fees from Amplitude SAS, personal fees from Stryker, a patent pending (PCT/AU2018/000241), all outside the submitted work. S. J. MacDessi reports fellowship funding from Smith and Nephew and Zimmer Biomet, consulting fees from Amplitude SAS, personal fees from Stryker, a patent pending (PCT/AU2018/000241), all outside the submitted work.

                coronal plane alignment knee classification,arithmetic hka,joint line obliquity,knee alignment,constitutional alignment,kinematic alignment,cpak

                Comments

                Comment on this article