Mechanical Alignment vs Kalipered Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty

Up to 20% of patients that report dissatisfaction and chronic pain following Total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Prior research has identified patient demographic, comorbidity, and expectations as factors that are associated with dissatisfaction. Emerging literature has also suggested that surgical factors including component alignment, soft tissue balance, and kinematics may play a role in patient satisfaction, and that modifications to alignment may result in better function than performing soft tissue releases. Personalized alignment strategies have been proposed that aim to more closely recreate native knee morphology and kinematics. Kinematic alignment (KA) describes a technique that aims to restore the pre-arthritic joint surfaces and alignment of the femur and tibia by removing the bone and cartilage thickness that will be replaced by the implant, taking into account cartilage wear. KA can therefore be conceptualized as a resurfacing procedure, wherein native joint surfaces are replaced by prosthetic surfaces but the position and alignment of the joint surfaces are not changed. This contrasts with mechanical alignment (MA), in which implants are positioned perpendicular to the mechanical axes of the femur and tibia in a manner independent of the pre-arthritic joint surfaces, and soft tissue releases are performed to bring limb alignment into mechanical neutral. There have been prior randomized trials comparing kinematic and mechanical alignment, and these have had mixed results regarding the superiority of one approach over the other. The majority of these trials did not use the same operative modality for both groups (manual vs computer-assisted techniques) or did not include relevant patient reported outcomes (PROs). There is a need for a prospective, randomized trial comparing outcomes following kinematic vs mechanical alignment TKA, with the same operative modality used in both groups with inclusion of relevant PROs.