PurposeThe currently used system to classify the lower limb alignment (neutral, varus, valgus) does not consider the orientation of the joint line or its relationship to the overall lower limb alignment. Similarly, current total knee arthroplasty (TKA) alignment concepts do not sufficiently consider the variability of the native coronal alignment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was (1) to introduce a new classification system for the lower limb alignment, based on phenotypes, and (2) to compare the alignment targets of different TKA alignment concepts with the native alignment of non‐osteoarthritic patients. MethodsTwo recent articles phenotyped the lower limb, the femur and tibia of 308 non‐osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients [male to female ratio = 102:58, mean age ± standard deviation 30 ± 7 years (16–44 years)]. The present study introduces functional knee phenotypes, which are a combination of all previously introduced phenotypes. The functional knee phenotypes therefore enable an evaluation of all parameters in relation to each other and thus a comprehensive analysis of the coronal alignment. The existing functional knee phenotypes in the female and male population were investigated. In addition, how many non‐osteoarthritic knees had an alignment within the range of current TKA alignment targets (mechanical, anatomical and restricted kinematic alignment) was investigated. Therefore, it was defined which functional knee phenotypes represented a target of the TKA alignment concepts and which percentage of the population had such a phenotype. ResultsOut of 125 possible functional knee phenotypes, 43 were found (35 male, 26 and 18 mutual). The most common functional knee phenotype in males was NEUHKA0° + NEUFMA0° + NEUTMA0° (19%), followed by VARHKA3° + NEUFMA0° + VARTMA0° (8.2%). The most common functional knee phenotype in females was NEUHKA0° + NEUFMA0° + NEUTMA0° (17.7%), closely followed by NEUHKA0° + NEUFMA0° + VALTMA0° (16.6%). The functional knee phenotype representing a mechanical alignment target was found in 5.6% of the males and 3.6% of the females. The phenotype representing an anatomical alignment target was found in 18% of the males and 17% in females. Five of the nine phenotypes representing a restricted kinematic alignment target were found in this population (male 5, female 4, mutual 4). They represented 31.3% of all males and 45.1% of all females. ConclusionA more individualized approach to TKA alignment is needed. The functional knee phenotypes enable a simple, but detailed assessment of a patient’s individual anatomy and thereby could be a helpful tool to individualize the approach to TKA. Level of clinical evidenceIII, retrospective cohort study.

Purpose With the COVID-19 crisis, recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) are necessary for protection in orthopaedics and traumatology. The primary purpose of this study is to review and present current evidence and recommendations for personal protective equipment and safety recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons. UK) for consideration in the presented practice recommendations. Results World Health Organization guidance for respiratory aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation in a COVID19 environment was clear and included the use of an FFP3 (filtering face piece level 3) mask and face protection. However, the recommendation for surgical AGPs, such as the use of high-speed power tools in the operating theatre, was not clear until the UK Public Health England (PHE) guidance of 27 March 2020. This guidance included FFP3 masks and face protection, which UK surgeons quickly adopted. The recommended PPE for orthopaedic surgeons, working in a COVID19 environment, should consist of level 4 surgical gowns, face shields or goggles, double gloves, FFP2-3 or N95-99 respirator masks. An alternative to the mask, face shield and goggles is a powered air-purifying respirator, particularly if the surgeons fail the mask fit test or are required to undertake a long procedure. However, there is a high cost and limited availabilty of these devices at present. Currently available surgical helmets and toga systems may not be the solution due to a permeable top for air intake. During the current COVID-19 crisis, it appeared that telemedicine can be considered as an electronic personal protective equipment by reducing the number of physical contacts and risk contamination. Conclusion Orthopaedic and trauma surgery using power tools, pulsatile lavage and electrocautery are surgical aerosolgenerating procedures and all body fluids contain virus particles. Raising awareness of these issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19 to the surgical team by aerosolization of blood or other body fluids and hence adequate PPE should be available and used during orthopaedic surgery. In addition, efforts have to be made to improve the current evidence in this regard. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose There is a lack of knowledge about the joint line orientation of the femur and tibia in non-osteoarthritic knees. The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate the orientation of the joint lines in native non-osteoarthritic knees using 3D-reconstructed CT scans. The secondary purpose was to identify knee phenotypes to combine the information of the femoral and tibial alignment. Methods A total of 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients (male to female ratio = 102:58, mean age ± standard deviation 30 ± 7 years (16-44 years) were retrospectively included from our registry. All patients received CT of the knee according to the Imperial Knee Protocol. The orientation of the femoral and tibial joint line was measured in relation to their mechanical axis (femoral mechanical angle, FMA, and tibial mechanical angle, TMA) using a commercially planning software (Knee-PLAN 3D, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). The values of FMA and TMA were compared between males and females. Descriptive statistics, such as means, ranges, and measures of variance (e.g. standard deviations), were presented. Based on these results, phenotypes were introduced for the femur and tibia. These phenotypes, based on FMA and TMA values, consist of a mean value and cover a range of ± 1.5° from this mean (3° increments). The distribution of femoral and tibial phenotypes, and their combinations (knee phenotypes) were calculated for the total group and for both genders. ResultsThe overall mean FMA ± standard deviation (SD) was 93.4° ± 2.0° and values ranged from 87.9° varus to 100° valgus. The overall mean TMA ± SD was 87.2° ± 2.4° with a range of 81.3° varus to 94.6° valgus. FMA and TMA showed signiicant gender diferences (p < 0.01). Females showed more valgus alignment than males. The most common femoral phenotype was neutral in both genders. The most common tibial phenotype was neutral in the male knees (62.8%) and valgus (41.6%) in the female knees. In males, the most frequent combination (knee phenotype) was a neutral phenotype in the femur and a neutral phenotype in the tibia (25.6%). In females, it was a neutral femoral phenotype and a valgus tibial phenotype (28.3%). Conclusion 3D-reconstructed CT scans conirmed the great variability of the joint line orientation in non-osteoarthritic knees. The introduced femoral and tibial phenotypes enable the evaluation of the femoral and tibial alignment together (knee phenotypes). The variability of knee phenotypes found in this young non-osteoarthritic population clearly shows the need for a more individualized approach in TKA. Level of evidence III.