Trochlea morphology demonstrates variability but no gender difference in osteoarthritic patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, coronal lower leg alignment has received significant attention. Two classifications recently described the variability in both femoral and tibial morphology, resulting in differing native lower limb alignment. The native trochlea and the variability in morphology has received less attention. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of 200 patients undergoing robotically assisted TKA. Preoperative transverse CT scans were used to determine the posterior condylar axis (PCA), transepicondylar axis (TEA), lateral trochlear inclination (LTI), the sulcus angle (SA) and the anterior trochlear line (ATL). Outliers were defined as values > 1.5 IQR from median value. Trochlea dysplasia was defined as LTI < 12°. Gender differences were compared. RESULTS: In total, 99 patients were female (49.4%). SA had a median of 137.0° (IQR 12°), ATL 4° (IQR 4), LTI 18° (IQR 7°). Median TEA-PCA was 5° external (IQR 3°). There were 5.0% outliers in SA, 3.0% of outliers in ATL, 3.5% outliers in LTI and 4.5% outliers in the TEA-PCA. Trochlear dysplasia was present in 11.5% of the measurements. There was no difference in any of the angles between the genders. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates no difference in trochlea morphology between the genders, rather a significant number of overall outliers in trochlear morphology. Larger cohorts but also, more investigations, are needed to better understand the trochlear morphology of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. The personalized alignment strategies and implants need to account for this variability in the population.

The effect of different alignment strategies on trochlear orientation after total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: When planning and delivering total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there are multiple coronal alignment strategies such as functional alignment (FA), kinematic alignment (KA), mechanical and adjusted mechanical alignment (MA, aMA). Recent three-dimensional and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) studies have demonstrated that KA potentially better restores the trochlear anatomy than MA. The purpose of this study was to compare the restoration of the native trochlear orientation in patients undergoing RAS TKA using four different alignment strategies. It was hypothesised that FA would result in the lowest number of outliers. METHODS: This is a prospective study of 200 patients undergoing RAS-TKA with a single implant. All patients were analysed for MA and KA prebalancing, and 157 patients received aMA and 43 patients FA with intraoperative balancing. Preoperative transverse computed tomography scans were used to determine the posterior condylar axis (PCA), lateral trochlear inclination (LTI) angle, sulcus angle (SA) and anterior trochlear line (ATL) angle. Implant measurements were obtained using a photographic analysis. Intraoperative software data combined with implant data and preoperative measurements were used to calculate the differences. Outliers were defined as ≥3° of alteration. Trochlea dysplasia was defined as LTI < 12°. RESULTS: Native transepicondylar PCA had a median of 2°, LTI 18°, SA 137°, ATL 4°. LTI outliers were observed in 47%-60% of cases, with KA < FA < aMA < MA. For ATL, the range of outliers was 40.5%-85%, KA < FA < aMA < MA. SA produced 81% of outliers. Of all median angle values, only LTI when using KA was not significantly altered compared to the native knee. CONCLUSION: There is a significant alteration of trochlear orientation after TKA, regardless of the alignment strategy used. KA produced the lowest, but a substantial, number of outliers. The uniform design of implants causes the surgeon to compromise on balance in flexion versus trochlear position. The clinical relevance of this compromise requires further clinical investigations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.

No Benefit of Robotic-Assisted over Computer-Assisted Surgery for Achieving Neutral Coronal Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

The use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming increasingly popular due to better precision, potentially superior outcomes and the ability to achieve alternative alignment strategies. The most commonly used alignment strategy with RAS is a modification of mechanical alignment (MA), labeled adjusted MA (aMA). This strategy allows slight joint line obliquity of the tibial component to achieve superior balancing. In the present study, we compared coronal alignment after TKA using RAS with aMA and computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with MA that has been the standard in the center for more than 10 years. We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing TKA in a single center. Lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were compared for both techniques. In 140 patients, 68 CASs and 72 RASs, we observed no difference in postoperative measurements (median 90 degrees for all, LDFA p = 0.676, MPTA p = 0.947) and no difference in outliers <2 degrees (LDFA p = 0.540, MPTA p = 0.250). The present study demonstrates no benefit in eliminating outliers or achieving neutral alignment of both the femoral and the tibial components in robotic-assisted versus computer-assisted TKA if MA is the target. To utilize the precision of RAS, it is recommended to aim for more personalized alignment strategies. The level of evidence is level III retrospective study.

Increased Femoral Component Flexion and No Difference in Slope in Robotic- versus Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty When Targeting Mechanical Alignment.

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming popular due to better precision, when compared with other instrumentation. Although RAS has been validated in comparison with computer-assisted surgery (CAS), data from clinical settings comparing these two techniques are lacking. This is especially the case for sagittal alignment. Whereas pure mechanical alignment (MA) aims for 0 to 3 degrees of flexion of the femoral component and 3° of posterior slope for the tibial component, adjusted MA (aMA) mostly used with RAS allows for flexing of the femoral component for downsizing and increase of slope for an increase of the flexion gap. In the present study, we compared sagittal alignment after TKA using RAS with aMA and CAS targeting MA, which has been the standard in the center for more than 10 years. We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing TKA in a single center. Femoral component flexion and tibial slope were compared for both techniques. In 140 patients, 68 CAS and 72 RAS, we found no difference in tibial slope (p = 0.661), 1° median femoral component flexion (p = 0.023), and no difference in outliers (femur, p = 0.276, tibia, p = 0.289). RAS slightly increases femoral component flexion, but has no influence on tibial slope, when compared with CAS in TKA. If MA is the target, RAS provides no benefit over CAS for achieving the targeted sagittal alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective study.