Restricted kinematic alignment is clinically non-inferior to mechanical alignment in the short and mid-term: A systematic review.

Clinical outcomes Mechanical alignment Restricted kinematic Systematic review Total knee arthroplasty

Journal

The Knee
ISSN: 1873-5800
Titre abrégé: Knee
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9430798

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 22 07 2023
accepted: 03 10 2023
pubmed: 6 11 2023
medline: 6 11 2023
entrez: 5 11 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In recent years, kinematic alignment (KA) is becoming a valid alternative to mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, to avoid early failures, the restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) approach has been developed to restore native knee kinematics without reproducing extreme knee phenotype. This systematic review aims to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes between rKA and MA for TKA. A systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The following search string was adopted: (((restricted kinematic) AND (mechanical)) AND (alignment)) AND (knee). We included studies that analyzed rKA versus MA in terms of clinical outcomes and complications with a minimum of 6 months of follow up. The following rKA- and MA-related data were evaluated: patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs), radiographic analysis of lower limb alignment, and complications. Criteria from the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies were used to assess the methodological quality of the articles. This systematic review included seven clinical studies with a total of 892 knees (471 for MA group and 421 for rKA group, respectively). Overall, post-operative PROMs were similar between rKA and MA. Moreover, rKA reached better results regarding Forgotten Joint Score and post-operative patient satisfaction. Finally, no higher complication rate was observed with the rKA approach. The rKA aims to restore native knee kinematics, avoiding extreme deformities. Clinical outcomes are not inferior or even better for rKA compared with MA, without increasing the risk of short-middle-term implant failure. However, there is a high heterogeneity regarding the 'restricted' protocols used.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In recent years, kinematic alignment (KA) is becoming a valid alternative to mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, to avoid early failures, the restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) approach has been developed to restore native knee kinematics without reproducing extreme knee phenotype. This systematic review aims to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes between rKA and MA for TKA.
METHODS METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The following search string was adopted: (((restricted kinematic) AND (mechanical)) AND (alignment)) AND (knee). We included studies that analyzed rKA versus MA in terms of clinical outcomes and complications with a minimum of 6 months of follow up. The following rKA- and MA-related data were evaluated: patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs), radiographic analysis of lower limb alignment, and complications. Criteria from the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies were used to assess the methodological quality of the articles.
RESULTS RESULTS
This systematic review included seven clinical studies with a total of 892 knees (471 for MA group and 421 for rKA group, respectively). Overall, post-operative PROMs were similar between rKA and MA. Moreover, rKA reached better results regarding Forgotten Joint Score and post-operative patient satisfaction. Finally, no higher complication rate was observed with the rKA approach.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The rKA aims to restore native knee kinematics, avoiding extreme deformities. Clinical outcomes are not inferior or even better for rKA compared with MA, without increasing the risk of short-middle-term implant failure. However, there is a high heterogeneity regarding the 'restricted' protocols used.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37925804
pii: S0968-0160(23)00207-7
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2023.10.003
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

137-146

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Gabriele Cortina (G)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Pierangelo Za (P)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Giuseppe Francesco Papalia (GF)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: g.papalia@unicampus.it.

Pietro Gregori (P)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Vincenzo Condello (V)

Department of Orthopaedic, Joint Prosthetic, Arthroscopic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Humanitas Castelli, Bergamo, Italy.

Sebastiano Vasta (S)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Edoardo Franceschetti (E)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Stefano Campi (S)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Vincenzo Madonna (V)

Department of Orthopaedic, Joint Prosthetic, Arthroscopic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Humanitas Castelli, Bergamo, Italy.

Rocco Papalia (R)

Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy; Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Classifications MeSH