Search

Introduction: Alignment techniques in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to evolve. Functional alignment (FA) is a novel technique that utilizes robotic tools to deliver TKA with the aim of respecting individual anatomical variations. The purpose of this paper is to describe the rationale and technique of FA in the varus morphotype with the use of a robotic platform. Rationale: FA reproduces constitutional knee anatomy within quantifiable target ranges. The principles are founded on a comprehensive assessment and understanding of individual anatomical variations with the aim of delivering personalized TKA. The principles are functional pre-operative planning, reconstitution of native coronal alignment, restoration of dynamic sagittal alignment within 5° of neutral, maintenance of joint-line-obliquity and height, implant sizing to match anatomy and a joint that is balanced in flexion and extension through manipulation of implant positioning rather than soft tissue releases. Technique: An individualized plan is created from pre-operative imaging. Next, a reproducible and quantifiable method of soft tissue laxity assessment is performed in extension and flexion that accounts for individual variation in soft tissue laxity. A dynamic virtual 3D model of the joint and implant position that can be manipulated in all three planes is modified to achieve target gap measurements while maintaining the joint line phenotype and a final limb position within a defined coronal and sagittal range. Conclusion: Functional alignment is a novel knee arthroplasty technique that aims to restore constitutional bony alignment and balance the laxity of the soft tissues by placing and sizing implants in a manner that it respects the variations in individual anatomy. This paper presents the approach for the varus morphotype.

Purpose: One of the most pertinent questions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is: what could be considered normal coronal alignment? This study aims to define normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal alignment using large data from a computed tomography (CT)‐scan database and previously published phenotypes. Methods: Coronal alignment parameters from 11,191 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients were measured based on three dimensional reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software. Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of the overall hip knee ankle angle (HKA), femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA). Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ±1.5° from this mean. Coronal alignment is classified as normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant based on distribution frequency. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients in this study and non‐OA patients from a previously published study). Results: The arithmetic HKA (aHKA), combined normalised data of FMA and TMA, showed that 36.0% of knees were neutral within ±1 SD from the mean in both angles, 44.3% had either a TMA or a FMA within ±1–2 SD (normally aligned), 15.3% of the patients were deviant within ±2–3 SD and only 4.4% of them had an aberrant alignment (±3–4 SD in 3.4% and >4 SD in 1.0% of the patients respectively). However, combining the normalised data of HKA, FMA and TMA, 15.4% of patients were neutral in all three angles, 39.7% were at least normal, 27.7% had at least one deviant angle and 17.2% had at least one aberrant angle. For HKA, the males exhibited 1° varus and females were neutral. For FMA, the females exhibited 0.7° more valgus in mean than males and grew 1.8° per category (males grew 2.1° per category). For TMA, the males exhibited 1.3° more varus than females and both grew 2.3° and 2.4° (females) per category. Normal coronal alignment was 179.2° ± 2.8–5.6° (males) and 180.5 > ± 2.8–5.6° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 2.1–4.2° (males) and 93.8 > ± 1.8–3.6° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 2.3–4.6° (males) and 88 > ± 2.4–4.8° (females) for TMA. This means HKA 6.4 varus or 4.8° valgus (males) or 5.1° varus to 6.1° valgus was considered normal. For FMA HKA 1.1 varus or 7.3° valgus (males) or 0.2° valgus to 7.4° valgus was considered normal. For TMA HKA 7.9 varus or 1.3° valgus (males) or 6.8° varus to 2.8° valgus was considered normal. Aberrant coronal alignment started from 179.2° ± 8.4° (males) and 180.5 > ± 8.4° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 6.3° (males) 93.8 > ± 5.4° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 6.9° (males) and 88 > ± 7.2° (females) for TMA. This means HKA > 9.2° varus or 7.6° valgus (males) or 7.9° varus to 8.9° valgus was considered aberrant. Conclusion: Definitions of neutrality, normality, deviance as well as aberrance for coronal alignment in TKA were proposed in this study according to their distribution frequencies. This can be seen as an important first step towards a safe transition from the conventional one‐size‐fits‐all to a more personalised coronal alignment target. There should be further definitions combining bony alignment, joint surfaces' morphology, soft tissue laxities and joint kinematics. Level of Evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]