Abstract
Even though primary total knee arthroplasty involves resurfacing the joint with metal and plastic it is much more of a soft tissue operation than it is a bony procedure. The idea that altering the planned bony resection by a few degrees on either the tibial or femoral side of the joint might somehow eliminate the multifactorial pain complaints and reduced patient satisfaction seen in some 20% or more of cases in reported clinical series is clearly overly optimistic. Axial alignment is important, but no more so than the level of distal femoral resection, tibial and femoral rotation, tibial resection level and downslope and femoral sagittal plane alignment. The real problem is that errors in component positioning are common, rarely made one at a time, and are made more common by greater procedural complexity. No matter the resection method (let alone the resection target!) errors are commonly linked and iterative. For example: femoral malrotation on an under-resected distal femur (in a knee with minimal arthritic wear to begin with) can contribute to corresponding tibial malrotation helped by a “floated” tibial trial on an all too often overly resected and downsloped tibial surface that has been recut to allow full extension with the under-resected femur (and now also results in AP laxity in flexion). Small changes in the alignment target will not fix this!
On the other hand: Kinematic alignment individualised to the patient's anatomy as a means of reducing soft tissue imbalance and minimizing ligamentous releases is actually a reasonable objective and a laudable goal on the surface. The problem with operationalizing this widely relates to what is currently required to try and reliably achieve this goal using currently available implants and technology. In the early 1980's the proponents of “anatomic” alignment with a residual 2- to 3-degree varus tibial resection and corresponding joint obliquity were Hungerford and Krackow. This concept was widely adopted but proved to be fraught with difficulty in the hands of community based surgeons in that era due to common excessive varus tibial resection errors and resulting premature implant failures. Recent reports on kinematic alignment involve a plethora of technology combinations including pre-operative CT (or MRI) for 3D reconstruction and planning, custom jig fabrication, and navigated bony preparation or individualised bony cuts off of patient specific jigs. The goal is to allow customised resections that “estimate” original cartilage thickness and bone erosion and seek to replicate the original however native anatomy and provide better precision for bone resection. Even when successful this is often followed by placement of a standard implant not too different from those in the 80's and 90's which may well have one femoral articular “J curve” for all patents, a single patellofemoral groove design and anatomic shape for all, and that makes use of a central keel on a nonanatomic tibial design with limited sizing increments, all implanted into a patient without an ACL and not infrequently PCL deficient as well. And all of this is done with the hope of restoring the normal original knee kinematics!
The frequent combination of several of the above factors clinically in a single knee may help explain some of the variability in results of kinematic alignment reported by some authors even after excluding certain pre-operative deformities (excess valgus or varus).
For now mechanical alignment methods and instrumentation should remain the standard of care for routine TKA practice for most, and in complex primary cases for all.
