Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose The currently used system to classify the lower limb alignment (neutral, varus, valgus) does not consider the orientation of the joint line or its relationship to the overall lower limb alignment. Similarly, current total knee arthroplasty (TKA) alignment concepts do not sufficiently consider the variability of the native coronal alignment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was (1) to introduce a new classification system for the lower limb alignment, based on phenotypes, and (2) to compare the alignment targets of different TKA alignment concepts with the native alignment of non-osteoarthritic patients. Methods Two recent articles phenotyped the lower limb, the femur and tibia of 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients [male to female ratio = 102:58, mean age ± standard deviation 30 ± 7 years (16–44 years)]. The present study introduces functional knee phenotypes, which are a combination of all previously introduced phenotypes. The functional knee phenotypes therefore enable an evaluation of all parameters in relation to each other and thus a comprehensive analysis of the coronal alignment. The existing functional knee phenotypes in the female and male population were investigated. In addition, how many non-osteoarthritic knees had an alignment within the range of current TKA alignment targets (mechanical, anatomical and restricted kinematic alignment) was investigated. Therefore, it was defined which functional knee phenotypes represented a target of the TKA alignment concepts and which percentage of the population had such a phenotype. Results Out of 125 possible functional knee phenotypes, 43 were found (35 male, 26 and 18 mutual). The most common functional knee phenotype in males was NEU HKA 0° + NEU FMA 0° + NEU TMA 0° (19%), followed by VAR HKA 3° + NEU FMA 0° + VAR TMA 0° (8.2%). The most common functional knee phenotype in females was NEU HKA 0° + NEU FMA 0° + NEU TMA 0° (17.7%), closely followed by NEU HKA 0° + NEU FMA 0° + VAL TMA 0° (16.6%). The functional knee phenotype representing a mechanical alignment target was found in 5.6% of the males and 3.6% of the females. The phenotype representing an anatomical alignment target was found in 18% of the males and 17% in females. Five of the nine phenotypes representing a restricted kinematic alignment target were found in this population (male 5, female 4, mutual 4). They represented 31.3% of all males and 45.1% of all females. Conclusion A more individualized approach to TKA alignment is needed. The functional knee phenotypes enable a simple, but detailed assessment of a patient’s individual anatomy and thereby could be a helpful tool to individualize the approach to TKA. Level of clinical evidence III, retrospective cohort study.

Purpose Recently introduced total knee arthroplasty (TKA) alignment strategies aim to restore the pre-arthritic alignment of an individual patient. The native alignment of a patient can only be restored with detailed knowledge about the native and osteoarthritic alignment as well as differences between them. The first aim of this study was to assess the alignment of a large series of osteoarthritic (OA) knees and investigate whether femoral and tibial joint lines vary within patients with the same overall lower limb alignment. The secondary aim was to compare the alignment of OA patients to the previously published data of non-OA patients. This information could be useful for surgeons considering implementing one of the new alignment concepts. Material Coronal alignment parameters of 2692 knee OA patients were measured based on 3D reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software (Knee-PLAN ® , Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of either the overall alignment, the femoral joint line orientation or the tibial joint line orientation. Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ± 1.5° from this mean. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients of this study and non-OA patients of a previously published study) as well as between HKA subgroups (varus, valgus and neutral) using t tests and Chi-square tests ( p  < 0.05). Results Femoral and tibial joint lines varied within patients with the same overall lower limb alignment. A total of 162 functional knee phenotypes were found (119 males, 136 females and 94 mutual phenotypes). Mean values differed between the OA and non-OA population, but differences were small (< 2°) except for the overall alignment (e.g. HKA). The distribution of OA and non-OA patients among the phenotypes differed significantly, especially among the limb phenotypes. Conclusion Differences between OA and non-OA knees are small regarding coronal femoral and tibial joint line orientation. Femoral and tibial joint line orientation of osteoarthritic patients can, therefore, be used to estimate their native coronal alignment and plan an individualized knee alignment. Level of clinical evidence III.

Purpose There is a lack of knowledge about the joint line orientation of the femur and tibia in non-osteoarthritic knees. The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate the orientation of the joint lines in native non-osteoarthritic knees using 3D-reconstructed CT scans. The secondary purpose was to identify knee phenotypes to combine the information of the femoral and tibial alignment. Methods A total of 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients (male to female ratio = 102:58, mean age ± standard deviation 30 ± 7 years (16–44 years) were retrospectively included from our registry. All patients received CT of the knee according to the Imperial Knee Protocol. The orientation of the femoral and tibial joint line was measured in relation to their mechanical axis (femoral mechanical angle, FMA, and tibial mechanical angle, TMA) using a commercially planning software (KneePLAN 3D, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). The values of FMA and TMA were compared between males and females. Descriptive statistics, such as means, ranges, and measures of variance (e.g. standard deviations), were presented. Based on these results, phenotypes were introduced for the femur and tibia. These phenotypes, based on FMA and TMA values, consist of a mean value and cover a range of ± 1.5° from this mean (3° increments). The distribution of femoral and tibial phenotypes, and their combinations (knee phenotypes) were calculated for the total group and for both genders. Results The overall mean FMA ± standard deviation (SD) was 93.4° ± 2.0° and values ranged from 87.9° varus to 100° valgus. The overall mean TMA ± SD was 87.2° ± 2.4° with a range of 81.3° varus to 94.6° valgus. FMA and TMA showed significant gender differences ( p  < 0.01). Females showed more valgus alignment than males. The most common femoral phenotype was neutral in both genders. The most common tibial phenotype was neutral in the male knees (62.8%) and valgus (41.6%) in the female knees. In males, the most frequent combination (knee phenotype) was a neutral phenotype in the femur and a neutral phenotype in the tibia (25.6%). In females, it was a neutral femoral phenotype and a valgus tibial phenotype (28.3%). Conclusion 3D-reconstructed CT scans confirmed the great variability of the joint line orientation in non-osteoarthritic knees. The introduced femoral and tibial phenotypes enable the evaluation of the femoral and tibial alignment together (knee phenotypes). The variability of knee phenotypes found in this young non-osteoarthritic population clearly shows the need for a more individualized approach in TKA. Level of evidence III.

Purpose There is a lack of knowledge about the native coronal knee alignment in 3D. The currently used classification system (neutral, valgus and varus) oversimplifies the coronal knee alignment. The purpose of this study was therefore (1) to investigate the coronal knee alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees using 3D-reconstructed CT images and (2) to introduce a classification system for the overall knee alignment based on phenotypes. Methods The hospital registry was searched for patients younger than 45 years and older than 16, who received a CT according to the Imperial Knee Protocol. Patients with prosthesis, osteoarthritis, fractures or injury of the collateral ligaments were excluded. Finally, 308 non-osteoarthritic knees of 160 patients remained (102 males and 58 females, mean age ± standard deviation (SD) 30 ± 7 years). The overall lower limb alignment was defined as the hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA), which is formed by lines connecting the centers of the femoral head, the knee and the talus. The angle was measured using a commercially planning software (KneePLAN 3D, Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). Descriptive statistics, such as means, ranges, and measures of variance (e.g., standard deviations) are presented. Based on these results, the currently used classification system was evaluated and a new system, based on phenotypes, was introduced. These phenotypes consist of a phenotype-specific mean value (a HKA value) and cover a range of ± 1.5° from this mean (e.g., 183° ± 1.5°). The mean values represent 3° increments of the angle starting from the overall mean value (mean HKA = 180°; 3° increments = 183° and 177°, 186° and 174°). The distribution of these limb phenotypes was assessed. Results The overall mean HKA was 179.7° ± 2.9° varus and values ranged from 172.6° varus to 187.1° valgus. The mean HKA values for male and female were 179.2° ± 2.8° and 180.5° ± 2.8°, respectively, which implied a significant gender difference ( r 2  = 0.23). The most common limb phenotype in males was NEU HKA 0° (36.4%), followed by VAR HKA 3° (29.2%) and VAL HKA 3° (23.1%). The most common limb phenotype in females was NEU HKA 0° (36.4%), followed by VAL HKA 3° (22.1%) and VAR HKA 3° (15.0%). Conclusion The measurements using 3D-reconstructed CT images confirmed the great variability of the overall lower limb alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees. However, the currently used classification system (neutral, varus, valgus) oversimplifies the coronal alignment and therefore the introduced classification system, based on limb phenotypes, should be used. This will help to better understand individual coronal knee alignment. Level of evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Purpose Coronal alignment of the knee is defined by the hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA), the femoral mechanical angle (FMA), the tibial mechanical angle (TMA), and the joint line convergence angle (JLCA). To date, there is still a lack of knowledge about the variability of native coronal knee alignment. The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of the current literature about the variability of coronal knee alignment (HKA, FMA, TMA, and JLCA) in non-osteoarthritic knees. Methods The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to search date (November 1, 2018) and screened for relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Inclusion criteria were studies that reported the coronal alignment of the native, non-osteoarthritic knee. Results A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies performed the measurements on weight-bearing long-leg standing radiographs (LLR), one study used MRI, and one study used the EOS imaging system. The mean HKA ranged from 176.7° ± 2.8° (male) to 180.7° (female). The mean FMA ranged from 92.08° ± 1.78° (female) to 97.2° ± 2.7° (female). The mean TMA ranged from 84.6° ± 2.5° (female) to 89.6° (female). The mean JLCA ranged from − 0.47° ± 0.98° (male) to − 1.9° ± 1.4° (female). Conclusion This systematic review provides a detailed overview about the variability of the coronal knee alignment in non-osteoarthritic knees. The broad variability of all coronal alignment parameters highlights the necessity for a more anatomic and individualized approach in knee arthroplasty. It also offers the fundament to understand the changes in osteoarthritic knees. Level of clinical evidence Systematic review, Level IV.

Purpose Joint line orientation (JLO) plays an important role in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but its influence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine JLO impact as measured by the forgotten joint score (FJS-12). The hypothesis was that restoring the joint line (JL) parallel to the floor would influence joint awareness favorably, i.e., allow the patient to forget about the joint in daily living. Methods All computer-navigated primary TKAs using a cemented, cruciate-retaining (CR) design implanted between January 2018 and September 2019 were reviewed in this retrospective single-center analysis. Primary endpoints were: clinical [range of motion (ROM)], and patient-reported (FJS-12) and radiographical outcomes [tibia joint line angle (TJLA), hip knee axis (HKA), mechanical medial proximal tibia angle (mMPTA) as well as mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA)]. Results Seventy-six patients (mean age: 70.3 ± 9.7 years, mean BMI: 29.7 ± 5.2 kg/m 2 ) were included. Postoperative ROM averaged 118.7 ± 9.6°. The mean FJS-12 improved from 16.4 ± 15.3 (preoperatively) to 89.4 ± 16.9 (1-year follow-up; p  < 0.001). Clinical outcomes and PROs did not correlate with JLO ( p  = n.s.). Cluster analysis using six measures revealed that a medially opened TJLA was associated with significantly better postoperative FJS-12. Conclusion Tibial JLO was found to have no effect on PROs. Considering the JLO in the coronal plane alone probably has questionable clinical relevance. Lower limb alignment should be assessed in all three planes and correlated with the clinical outcome. Level of clinical evidence Level IV.

Purpose This systematic review aimed to evaluate the variability of patellofemoral (PF) alignment and trochlear morphology in osteoarthritic knees. Methods PF alignment of the knee was defined by the following parameters: the sulcus angle (SA), femoral trochlear depth (FTD), patellar tilt angle (PTA), lateral patellofemoral angle (LPFA), lateral femoral trochlear inclination (LFTI) and tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance (TT–TG). The electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from database inception to the search date (February 19, 2019) and were screened for relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Articles reporting PF alignment measurements of osteoarthritic knees in patients over 40 years old were included. Data were extracted and methodological quality was assessed using a 14-item checklist. Results A total of 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported mean values ± SD between 120° and 141.1° ± 7.7 for the SA; 5.8 mm ± 1.4 for the FTD; between − 0.1° ± 3.3 and 10.3° ± 5.7 for the PTA; between 5.8° ± 5.4 and 17° for the LPFA; between 23.2° ± 5.0 and 27.1° ± 4.4 for the LFTI; and 5.8 mm ± 5.4 for the TT-TG. Conclusion PF alignment in the osteoarthritic knee is more variable than expected. This finding should encourage surgeons to consider the individual preoperative PF alignment more precisely with the aim of reducing anterior knee pain (AKP) after TKA. 3D-CT imaging might be of great value to analyse the PF alignment in an appropriate way. Level of evidence Level III.

Purpose There is still lack of knowledge regarding the variability of patellofemoral alignment in healthy, non-osteoarthritic knees, without patellofemoral instability. Therefore, a systematic review of the existing literature was performed to evaluate the variability of patellofemoral alignment. Methods Patellofemoral alignment of the knee was defined by the following parameters: sulcus angle (SA), femoral trochlear depth (FTD), patellar tilt angle (PTA), lateral patellofemoral angle (LPFA), lateral femoral trochlear inclination (LFTI) and tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance (TT–TG). The electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from database inception to search date (January 11, 2019) and screened for relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Articles reporting PF alignment measurements of healthy knees in patients between 15 years and 47 years were included. Results A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported mean values and standard deviations for the SA between 118.7° ± 7 and 168°; for the FTD between 3.4 mm ± 1.1 and 7.1 mm ± 1.8; for the PTA between 0.7° ± 4.99 and 17.05° ± 4.3; for the LPFA between 6.26° ± 4.1 and 11.1° ± 4.0; for the LFTI between 16.3° ± 2.8 and 22.1° ± 1.9; and for the TT–TG between 9.8 mm ± 4.6 and 17.3 mm ± 5.3. Conclusion Patellofemoral alignment in the healthy knee is extremely variable. A more precise knowledge of the complex relationship between the patella and the trochlea may help to better diagnose PF disorders and eventually help in selecting the correct therapy. Furthermore, standardised imaging protocols and measurement techniques for patellofemoral parameters are needed. Level of evidence III.

Purpose For coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) most surgeons use the patient’s individual hip-knee shaft (HKS) angle (angle between the anatomical axis and the mechanical axis of the femur). The major problem of the sole use of HKS angle is that the individual patient’s distal femoral asymmetry is not considered. The purpose of this study was to determine the variability of the HKS angle, the mechanical femoral angle (FMA) and to evaluate whether or not one of the two angles is more important for TKA alignment strategy. It was the hypothesis that HKS and FMA are not directly related to each other and hence HKS should not be considered as guide for coronal alignment. Methods Prospectively collected CT data of 1480 consecutive patients who underwent 3D reconstructed CT scans before TKA was used for this retrospective registry study [882 women and 598 men, mean age ± standard deviation 71 ± 9 years (34–99 years)]. The CT protocol was modified according to the Imperial Knee Protocol, which is a lowdose CT protocol that includes high-resolution 0.75-mm slices of the knee and 3-mm slices of the hip and ankle joints. All measurements were done using Symbios ® 3D knee preoperative planning’s software (Symbios, Yverdon les Bains, Switzerland). The HKS, FMA and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angles were measured. Angles measured were displayed as mean, standard deviation (SD) and range. In addition, the angles were shown as percentages after categorization. The HKS was categorized between 3° and 9° in 1° increments. The FMA was categorized between 83.5° and 98.5° in 3° increments. The HKA was categorized between 12.5° varus 5.5° valgus in 3° increments. Pearson correlations were used to investigate correlation of HKS and FMA ( p  < 0.05). Results The HKS angle was not constant at 7° but averaged 6°, and ranged from 2.5° to 9°. The FMA angle was on average 93° but varied more than 20°, ranging from 75° (varus) to 104° (valgus). The mean HKA ± SD was − 3.4° ± 5.7° (range − 23.0° to 15.0°). The mean HKSSD was 5.6° ± 0.9° (range 2.5°–8.8°). The mean FMASD was 92.6° ± 2.8° (range 75.2°–103.5°). The Pearson correlations of all measured angles are presented in Table 1. HKS significantly correlated negatively with HKA and FMA ( p  < 0.001). FMA and HKA were strongly correlated with each other ( p  < 0.0001). Considering the HKS angle as a constant angle can induce a deviation of up to 5° with respect to an orthogonal distal femoral cutting objective. The great variability of the FMA angle implies that the FMA seems more relevant than the HKS angle to define the strategy of realignment of the lower limb. However, then patient specific instrumentation has to be used to precisely transfer the planning to the surgical technique. Having the aim of a more personalized TKA alignment in mind the individual constitutional knee phenotype should be taken into account.

Purpose Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs evolve continuously to improve patient outcomes. However, incidences of radiolucent lines (RLL) in the latest TKA system have recently been reported, raising concerns. The purpose of the current study was to compare radiographic outcomes of this new TKA implant to its predecessor design. Methods A group of 100 patients undergoing TKA using the newer design (Attune) was matched by age and gender to 191 patients with the classic design (LCS). All patients underwent computer-navigated primary TKA by the same surgeon using the same technique. Radiographs were taken before discharge, and 2 and 12 months postoperatively. Radiographic analysis was performed independently by three assessors, using the Modern Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System and Methodology (MKSRES). Results At 12 months postoperatively, the incidence of RLL did not statistically differ between the two implants (14%, n  = 14 Attune vs. 8% n  = 17 LCS, n.s.). The posterior femoral flange was most commonly affected (12%; n  = 12 Attune vs. 7.9%; n  = 15 LCS, n.s.) followed by the anterior flange (1%; n  = 1 Attune vs. 3.1%; n  = 6 LCS, n.s.). The tibial baseplate was only affected in 1% ( n  = 1) of the Attune and 2.6% ( n  = 5) of the LCS (n.s.). Conclusion At 12 months follow-up we found no significant difference in RLL between the two implants. Both Attune and LCS TKA systems showed RLL predominantly at the posterior femoral flange. The reasons for the RLL remain a matter of speculation; however, shortcomings in surgical and cementing techniques seem to be more important than implant-related factors. Level of evidence III