4.6 Article

Computer-Assisted Kinematic and Mechanical Axis Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Bilateral Simultaneous Surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 443-450

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.064

Keywords

computer assisted; total knee; arthroplasty; kinematic; mechanical

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Randomized controlled trials of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have to date demonstrated at least equivalence of KA in terms of clinical outcomes. No trial of bilateral TKA has been conducted so patient preference for one technique over the other is unknown. Methods: Forty-one participants underwent computer-assisted bilateral TKA. The outcome measures were as follows: (1) joint range of motion and functional scores including the KOOS, the KOOS JR, Oxford Knee Score, and the Forgotten Joint Score at a minimum of 2 years; (2) preference and perception of limb symmetry; (3) intraoperative alignment data; (4) release and gap balance data; and (5) postoperative radiographic joint angles. Results: There were no significant differences with respect to flexion range (P=.970) or functional scores (mean KOOS, P=.941; KOOS JR, P=.685; Oxford Knee Score, P=.578; FJS, P=.542). Significantly more participants who favored one knee preferred their KA TKA (P=.03); however, half of the patients had no preference and the overall numbers were small. Only 3 participants perceived any limb asymmetry (P<.001). More releases were required in the MA group (P=.018). Standing hip-knee-ankle angle means and frequency distributions were similar (P=.097 and P=.097, respectively). Conclusion: Clinical outcomes were equivalent at 2 years. Significantly more participants preferred their KA joint. Fewer releases were required using a KA technique. Participants were visually insensitive to modest hip-knee-ankle angle asymmetry. Level of Evidence: Level 1. (c) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available