An alternative technique of restricted kinematic alignment of the femur and gap balanced alignment of the tibia using computer aided navigation

The kinematic axis of the tibiofemoral joint1 and the patellofemoral joint2 passes through the distal femur. Therefore, when utilizing a single radii prosthesis it would seem optimal to align femoral component to the kinematic axes for the distal femur. Kinematic alignment would dictate that the tibial should also be aligned according to the patient’s morphology with true measured resection.3 An alternative method would be to align the tibia component using intraoperative computeraided gap balancing; the kinematically aligned femur is used as the fixed reference to create rectangular joint spaces firstly in extension then in flexion, which can be finetuned using tibial slope. The advent of computer navigation and robotic assisted knee surgery allows the surgeon to be precise within±1° and control the final alignment.4 An additional advantage of robotic assisted surgery is that there is less damage to the soft tissue envelope,5 which may help replicate knee kinematics, reduce postoperative pain, and improve early functional outcomes.6,7 The authors describe a new technique of restricted kinematic alignment of the femoral component and using computeraided gap balancing to align the tibial component. The femur is positioned using measured resection to maintain the centre of rotation of the knee matching the medial and lateral joint lines/ contours and the trochlear groove (within±3° of the mechanical axis). Tibial resection is then dictated by the femoral prosthesis (gap balanced) aiming for equal extension and flexion gaps medially and laterally, allowing for a degree of varus or valgus to within±3° of the mechanical axis, which should not influence implant survival.8,9 The authors feel it is key to restore the isometric medial compartment balance/gap in extension and flexion, but some laxity (increased gap) can be tolerated in the lateral compartment, for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes.10

[1]  M. Hull,et al.  Kinematic Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2012 .

[2]  P. Rowe,et al.  Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty , 2017, Bone & joint research.

[3]  Michael A. Mont,et al.  Less Iatrogenic Soft Tissue Damage Utilizing Robotic Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty when Compared with a Manual Approach: A Blinded Assessment , 2019 .

[4]  Michael A. Mont,et al.  Less iatrogenic soft-tissue damage utilizing robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared with a manual approach , 2019, Bone & joint research.

[5]  M. Hull,et al.  Implant Survival and Function Ten Years After Kinematically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty. , 2018, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  K. Doma,et al.  Medial and lateral gap laxity differential in computer‐assisted kinematic total knee arthroplasty , 2019, The bone & joint journal.

[7]  N. Clement,et al.  Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater early functional outcome when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty for isolated medial compartment arthritis , 2020, Bone & joint research.

[8]  Ashutosh Kumar Singh,et al.  The Axes of Rotation of the Knee , 1993, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  S. Banks,et al.  Kneeling kinematics after total knee arthroplasty: anterior-posterior contact position of a standard and a high-flex tibial insert design. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  Daniel J Berry,et al.  Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.