A robotic-assisted simulation of kinematic alignment in TKA leads to excessive valgus and internal rotation in valgus knees

Britt Ollivier; Hilde Vandenneucker; Hannes Vermue; Thomas Luyckx

doi:10.1007/s00167-023-07504-x

A robotic-assisted simulation of kinematic alignment in TKA leads to excessive valgus and internal rotation in valgus knees

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023 Nov;31(11):4747-4754. doi: 10.1007/s00167-023-07504-x. Epub 2023 Jul 18.

Authors

Britt Ollivier¹, Hilde Vandenneucker^{2

3}, Hannes Vermue⁴, Thomas Luyckx⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium. brittolli4@gmail.com.
² Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
³ Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
⁴ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
⁵ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, AZ Delta, Roeselare, Belgium.

PMID: 37464100
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07504-x

Abstract

Purpose: Strategies to further improve patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty include the introduction of new alignment philosophies and more precise instruments such as navigation and robotics. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a combination of image-based robotic assistance and the use of modern alignment strategies on the resulting joint line obliquity as well as femoral component rotation and to compare this between varus, neutral and valgus knees.

Methods: This retrospective study included 200 patients who received a robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (MAKO^®, Stryker) using functional alignment between 2018 and 2020. The patients were divided into a varus (103 patients), neutral (57 patients) and valgus (40 patients) group. The intraoperatively recorded bone cuts and resulting joint line obliquity were identified and compared to values obtained with a robotic computer simulation of kinematic alignment.

Results: The mean femoral coronal alignment of the varus, neutral and valgus group, respectively, equalled 0.5° (± 1.1°), 1.1° (± 0.8°) and 1.6° (± 0.7°) of valgus with functional alignment and 2.1° (± 2.1°), 4.1° (± 1.7°) and 6.2° (± 1.7°) of valgus with kinematic alignment. The mean femoral axial alignment of the valgus group resulted in 0.8° (± 2.0°) of internal rotation with functional alignment and 3.9° (± 2.8°) of internal rotation with kinematic alignment. Overall, 186 knees (93%) could be balanced while respecting certain safe zones by using functional alignment as opposed to 54 knees (27% and none in the valgus group) when applying kinematic alignment. Kinematic alignment led to a combination of femoral component valgus and internal rotation of more than 3° in 22 valgus knees (55%), 10 neutral knees (18%) and 3 varus knees (3%) compared to none in each group when applying functional alignment with safe zones.

Conclusions: Robotic-assisted kinematic alignment leads to a combination of excessive valgus and internal rotation of the femoral component in valgus and to a lesser extent also in neutral knees when compared with functional alignment.

Level of evidence: IV.

Keywords: Alignment; Functional alignment; Internal rotation; Kinematic alignment; Robotics; Total knee replacement; Valgus.