The effect of different alignment strategies on trochlear orientation after total knee arthroplasty

Abstract

PurposeWhen planning and delivering total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there are multiple coronal alignment strategies such as functional alignment (FA), kinematic alignment (KA), mechanical and adjusted mechanical alignment (MA, aMA). Recent three‐dimensional and robotic‐assisted surgery (RAS) studies have demonstrated that KA potentially better restores the trochlear anatomy than MA. The purpose of this study was to compare the restoration of the native trochlear orientation in patients undergoing RAS TKA using four different alignment strategies. It was hypothesised that FA would result in the lowest number of outliers.MethodsThis is a prospective study of 200 patients undergoing RAS‐TKA with a single implant. All patients were analysed for MA and KA prebalancing, and 157 patients received aMA and 43 patients FA with intraoperative balancing. Preoperative transverse computed tomography scans were used to determine the posterior condylar axis (PCA), lateral trochlear inclination (LTI) angle, sulcus angle (SA) and anterior trochlear line (ATL) angle. Implant measurements were obtained using a photographic analysis. Intraoperative software data combined with implant data and preoperative measurements were used to calculate the differences. Outliers were defined as ≥3° of alteration. Trochlea dysplasia was defined as LTI < 12°.ResultsNative transepicondylar PCA had a median of 2°, LTI 18°, SA 137°, ATL 4°. LTI outliers were observed in 47%–60% of cases, with KA < FA < aMA < MA. For ATL, the range of outliers was 40.5%–85%, KA < FA < aMA < MA. SA produced 81% of outliers. Of all median angle values, only LTI when using KA was not significantly altered compared to the native knee.ConclusionThere is a significant alteration of trochlear orientation after TKA, regardless of the alignment strategy used. KA produced the lowest, but a substantial, number of outliers. The uniform design of implants causes the surgeon to compromise on balance in flexion versus trochlear position. The clinical relevance of this compromise requires further clinical investigations.Level of EvidenceLevel II, prospective cohort study.