Ten Flaws of Systematic Mechanical Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty.


Journal

The Journal of arthroplasty
ISSN: 1532-8406
Titre abrégé: J Arthroplasty
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703515

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 07 11 2023
revised: 14 11 2023
accepted: 17 11 2023
pubmed: 26 11 2023
medline: 26 11 2023
entrez: 25 11 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Mechanical alignment (MA) and its tenets have been considered essential for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) success since they were introduced in 1973. However, over time, there have been colossal advances in our knowledge and understanding of the anatomy and kinematics of the knee, as well as in surgical precision and implants. However, the MA systematic principles of prosthetic arthroplasty and implant position related to the lower-extremity mechanical axis, have only recently been called into question. The high rates of dissatisfaction and residual pain reported after MA TKA prompted this questioning, and that leaves plenty of room for improvement. Despite the general consensus that there is great variability between patients' anatomy, it is still the norm to carry out a systematic operation that does not consider individual variations. Evolving to a more personalized arthroplasty surgery was proposed as a rational and reasonable option to improve patient outcomes. Transitioning to a personalized TKA approach requires questioning and even disregarding certain MA TKA principles. Based on current knowledge, we can state that certain principles are erroneous or unfounded. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss and challenge 10 previously accepted, yet we believe, flawed, principles of MA, and to present an alternative concept, which is rooted in personalized TKA techniques.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38007204
pii: S0883-5403(23)01167-1
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.11.023
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Gautier Beckers (G)

Surgery Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Personalized Arthroplasty Society, Atlanta, Georgia.

R Michael Meneghini (RM)

Indiana Joint Replacement Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Michael T Hirschmann (MT)

Personalized Arthroplasty Society, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Liestal, Laufen), Bruderholz, Switzerland.

Lazaros Kostretzis (L)

2nd Academic Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, General Hospital of Thessaloniki "G. Gennimatas", Thessaloniki, Central Macedonia, Greece.

Marc-Olivier Kiss (MO)

Surgery Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Personalized Arthroplasty Society, Atlanta, Georgia; Clinique Orthopédique Duval, Laval, Quebec, Canada.

Pascal-André Vendittoli (PA)

Surgery Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Personalized Arthroplasty Society, Atlanta, Georgia; Clinique Orthopédique Duval, Laval, Quebec, Canada.

Classifications MeSH