11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Restricted Kinematic Alignment, the Fundamentals, and Clinical Applications

      methods-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

          Introduction: After a better understanding of normal knee anatomy and physiology, the Kinematic Alignment (KA) technique was introduced to improve clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The goal of the KA technique is to restore the pre-arthritic constitutional lower limb alignment of the patient. There is, however, a large range of normal knee anatomy. Unusual anatomies may be biomechanically inferior and affect TKA biomechanics and wear patterns. In 2011, the leading author proposed the restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) protocol, setting boundaries to KA for patients with an outlier or atypical knee anatomy.

          Material and Equipment: rKA aims to reproduce the constitutional knee anatomy of the patient within a safe range. Its fundamentals are based on sound comprehension of lower limb anatomy variation. There are five principles describing rKA: (1) Combined lower limb coronal orientation should be ± 3° of neutral; (2) Joint line orientation coronal alignment should be within ± 5° of neutral; (3) Natural knee's soft tissues tension/ laxities should be preserved/restored; (4) Femoral anatomy preservation is prioritized; (5) The unloaded/most intact knee compartment should be resurfaced and used as the pivot point when anatomical adjustment is required. An algorithm was developed to facilitate the decision-making.

          Methods: Since ~50% of patients will require anatomic modification to fit within rKA boundaries, rKA is ideally performed with patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), intra-operative computer navigation or robotic assistance. rKA surgical technique is presented in a stepwise manner, following the five principles in the algorithm.

          Results: rKA produced excellent mid-term clinical results in cemented or cementless TKA. Gait analysis showed that rKA TKA patients had gait patterns that were very close to a non-operated control group, and these kinematics differences translated into significantly better postoperative patient-reported scores than mechanical alignment (MA) TKA cases.

          Discussion: Aiming to improve the results of MA TKA, rKA protocol offers a satisfactory compromise that recreates patients' anatomy in most cases, omitting the need for extensive corrections and soft tissue releases that are often required with MA. Moreover, it precludes the reproduction of extreme anatomies seen with KA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

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

          Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?

          Despite substantial advances in primary TKA, numerous studies using historic TKA implants suggest only 82% to 89% of primary TKA patients are satisfied. We reexamined this issue to determine if contemporary TKA implants might be associated with improved patient satisfaction. We performed a cross-sectional study of patient satisfaction after 1703 primary TKAs performed in the province of Ontario. Our data confirmed that approximately one in five (19%) primary TKA patients were not satisfied with the outcome. Satisfaction with pain relief varied from 72-86% and with function from 70-84% for specific activities of daily living. The strongest predictors of patient dissatisfaction after primary TKA were expectations not met (10.7x greater risk), a low 1-year WOMAC (2.5x greater risk), preoperative pain at rest (2.4x greater risk) and a postoperative complication requiring hospital readmission (1.9x greater risk). Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
            Bookmark
            • 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

              Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Surg
                Front Surg
                Front. Surg.
                Frontiers in Surgery
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-875X
                20 July 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 697020
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Surgery, CIUSSS-de-L'Est-de-L'Ile-de-Montréal, Hôpital Maisonneuve Rosemont , Montréal, QC, Canada
                [2] 2Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal , Montréal, QC, Canada
                [3] 3Clinique Orthopédique Duval , Laval, QC, Canada
                [4] 4Personalized Arthroplasty Society , Montréal, QC, Canada
                [5] 5Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital , Perth, WA, Australia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Sujit Kumar Tripathy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar, India

                Reviewed by: JaiThilak Kailathuvalapil, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, India; Prabhudevprasad Purudappa, VA Boston Healthcare System, United States

                *Correspondence: Pascal-André Vendittoli pa.vendittoli@ 123456me.com

                This article was submitted to Orthopedic Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

                Article
                10.3389/fsurg.2021.697020
                8329359
                34355018
                d9d72ed4-fed0-4010-8916-bb7d089e8c1e
                Copyright © 2021 Vendittoli, Martinov and Blakeney.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 18 April 2021
                : 28 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 11, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 52, Pages: 12, Words: 6752
                Categories
                Surgery
                Methods

                knee-surgery,alignment,kinematic,personalized medicine,anatomical,arthroplasty (replacement),mechanical,restricted

                Comments

                Comment on this article