Individualized pre-operative assessment of the patterns of the lower extremity anatomy and deformities in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty seems essential for a successful surgery. In the present study, we investigated the relationship among the coronal alignment and the rotational profile of the lower extremities in the Caucasian population with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. We conducted a prospective study of 385 knees that underwent a pre-operative three-dimensional computed tomography-based model. The lower extremity alignment was determined (mechanical tibiofemoral or hip-knee-ankle angle, supplementary angle of the femoral lateral distal angle, and proximal medial tibial angle). For each case, the femoral distal rotation (condylar twist angle), the femoral proximal version, and the tibial torsion were determined. As the coronal alignment changed from varus to valgus, the femoral external rotation increased (r = 0.217; p < 0.0005). As the coronal alignment changed from varus to valgus, the external tibial torsion increased (r = 0.248; p < 0.0005). No correlation was found between the global coronal alignment and the femoral version. The present study demonstrates a linear relationship between the coronal alignment and the rotational geometry of the distal femur. This correlation also occurs with the tibial torsion. Perhaps outcomes of total knee arthroplasty surgery might be improved by addressing these deformities as well.

There have been remarkable advances in knee replacement surgery over the last few decades. One of the concerns continues to be the accuracy in achieving the desired alignment. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was developed to increase component placement accuracy, but the available evidence is not conclusive. Our study aimed to determine a PSI system’s three-dimensional accuracy on 3D virtual models obtained by post-operative computed tomography. We compared the angular placement values of 35 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) operated within a year obtained with the planned ones, and we analyzed the possible relationships between alignment and patient-reported outcomes. The mean (SD) discrepancies measured by two experienced engineers to the planned values observed were 1.64° (1.3°) for the hip–knee–ankle angle, 1.45° (1.06°) for the supplementary angle of the femoral lateral distal angle, 1.44° (0.97°) for the proximal medial tibial angle, 2.28° (1.78°) for tibial slope, 0.64° (1.09°) for femoral sagittal flexion, and 1.42° (1.06°) for femoral rotation. Neither variables related to post-operative alignment nor the proportion of change between pre-and post-operative alignment influenced the patient-reported outcomes. The evaluated PSI system’s three-dimensional alignment analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the angular values planned and those obtained. However, we did not find a relevant effect size, and this slight discrepancy did not impact the clinical outcome.