ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: It is unclear whether a difference in functional outcome exists between kinematically aligned (KA) and mechanically aligned (MA) knee replacements. The aim of this study is to perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the available level I-IV evidence. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), gait analysis and complications in TKA with KA and MA was performed. Quality assessment was performed for each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: Twelve randomised controlled trials and fourteen observational studies published between 2014 and 2022 were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis revealed KA to have significantly better Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (p = 0.02), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) (p = 0.006), Knee Society Score (KSS) Objective Knee (p = 0.03) and KSS Functional Activity (p = 0.008) scores. However, these improvements did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values reported in the literature. Subgroup analysis showed robotic assisted KA-TKA to have a clinically superior FJS (p = 0.0002) and trend towards KSS Objective Knee score (p = 0.10), compared to PSI. Gait and plantar pressure distribution of KA cohorts more closely represented healthy cohorts, and KA showed a weak association of a decreased knee adduction moment (KAM) compared to MA. Differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), range of motion and complications were not significant between groups. CONCLUSION: Although KA results in several improved functional outcomes, these do not reach clinical significance. Further standardised large-scale randomised studies are required to improve the quality of evidence. As it stands, it is difficult to recommend one philosophy over the other.