The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) is a recent method for classifying knees using the hip-knee-ankle angle and joint line obliquity to assist surgeons in selection of an optimal alignment philosophy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)1. It is unclear, however, how CPAK classification impacts pre-operative joint balance. Our objective was to characterise joint balance differences between CPAK categories.

A retrospective review of TKA's using the OMNIBotics platform and BalanceBot (Corin, UK) using a tibia first workflow was performed. Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were landmarked intra-operatively and corrected for wear. Joint gaps were measured under a load of 70–90N after the tibial resection. Resection thicknesses were validated to recreate the pre-tibial resection joint balance.

Knees were subdivided into 9 categories as described by MacDessi et al.1 Differences in balance at 10°, 40° and 90° were determined using a one-way 2-tailed ANOVA test with a critical p-value of 0.05.

1124 knees satisfied inclusion criteria. The highest proportion of knees (60.7%) are CPAK I with a varus aHKA and Distal Apex JLO, 79.8% report a Distal Apex JLO and 69.3% report a varus aHKA. Greater medial gaps are observed in varus (I, IV, VII) compared to neutral (II, V, VIII) and valgus knees (III, VI, IX) (p<0.05 in all cases) as well as in the Distal Apex (I, II, III) compared to Neutral groups (IV, V, VI) (p<0.05 in all cases). Comparisons could not be made with the Proximal Apex groups due to low frequency (≤2.5%).

Significant differences in joint balance were observed between and within CPAK groups. Although both hip-knee-ankle angle and joint line orientation are associated with joint balance, boney anatomy alone is not sufficient to fully characterize the knee.

The hip-shelf procedure is less often indicated since the introduction of peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO). Although this procedure does not modify pelvic shape, its influence on subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not known. We performed a case-control study comparing THA after hip-shelf surgery and THA in dysplastic hips to determine: 1) its influence on THA survival, 2) technical issues and complications related to the former procedure.

We performed a retrospective case-control study comparing 61 THA cases done after hip-shelf versus 63 THA in case-matched dysplastic hips (control group). The control group was matched according to sex, age, BMI, ASA and Charnley score, and bearing type. We compared survival and function (Harris, Oxford-12), complications at surgery, rate of bone graft at cup insertion, and post-operative complications.

The 13-year survival rates for any reason did not differ: 89% ± 3.2% in THA after hip shelf versus 83% ± 4.5% in the controls (p = 0.56). Functional scores were better in the control group (Harris 90 ± 10, Oxford 41/48) than in the hip-shelf group (Harris 84.7 ± 14.7, Oxford 39/48) (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04). Operative time, bleeding and rate of acetabular bone grafting (1.6 hip-shelf versus 9.5 control) were not different (p > 0.05). Postoperative complication rates did not differ: one transient fibular nerve palsy and two dislocations (3.2%) in the hip-shelf group versus four dislocations in the control group (6.3%).

The hip-shelf procedure does not compromise the results of a subsequent THA in dysplastic hips. This procedure is simple and may keep its indications versus PAO in severely subluxed hips or in case of severe femoral head deformity.

Cementless distally locked stems were introduced in revision hip arthroplasty (RTHA) in the late 1980s to deal with severe femoral bone loss. These implants have not been assessed over the long-term, particularly the influence of the design and porous coating. Therefore we performed a retrospective case-control study at a minimum 10-years' follow-up comparing the straight Ultime™ stem with 1/3 porous coating versus the anatomical Linea™ stem with 2/3 proximal coating with hydroxyapatite.

We performed a single-center case-control study measuring survival, function based the Harris and Oxford-12 scores, and rate of thigh pain. X-rays were done at regular intervals and at follow-up. No femoral bone graft was used at insertion.

The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex and follow-up (mean 12.2 years in Ultime and 10.8 years in Linea cohorts); however they differed in the severity of bone loss therefore the results were adjusted according to this variable. Ten-year survival considering revision for any reason was 63.5% ± 5.4 for Ultime and 91.6% ± 2.7 for Linea (p < 0.001). Merle d'Aubigné scores and Oxford-12 were higher in the Linea group 82.9 ± 12.4 and 26.3/48, respectively, versus 69.5 ± 16 and 21/48 in the Ultime group (p < 0.001). Thigh pain was observed in 30% of Ultime cases versus 3% of Linea cases. Bone reconstruction measured via cortical thickness was better in the Linea group and correlated to metaphyseal filling at insertion.

This study confirms the benefits of using of locked stems in RTHA with severe bone loss. Better metaphyseal filling and optimized porous coating help to minimize thigh pain and the revision rate.