Kinematic alignment is bone and soft tissue preserving compared to mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty

Abstract Background Kinematically aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has emerged as an alternative approach to the intraoperative alignment targets of mechanically aligned (MA) TKA. While the clinical outcomes of the two philosophies have been investigated, further investigation is required to quantify exactly how the two philosophies differ in their approach to correcting the deformities encountered in osteoarthritic knees such as fixed flexion deformities (FFD) and coronal malalignment. The aim of this paper was to compare MA and KA philosophies in TKA in terms of the intra-operative correction of FFD and coronal malalignment and quantify the way in which each philosophy achieves a well-balanced knee that can reach full extension. Methods A retrospective review of prospective data collected from 210 consecutive TKAs performed by a single surgeon between March 2015 and May 2017 was undertaken. MA and KA cases were compared in terms of pre-operative patient deformity and characteristics, intraoperative steps taken to correct FFD (including bony resections, soft tissue releases and components used) and postoperative alignment achieved. Results One hundred twenty MA and 90 KA TKAs were analysed. There was no significant difference in terms of patient age, gender and preoperative coronal and sagittal deformity between the two cohorts. KA TKAs were able to achieve the same degree of sagittal correction as MA TKAs with less total bony resection (16.7 mm vs. 18.9 mm, p  Conclusion This study shows that using a kinematic alignment philosophy in total knee arthroplasty results in the achievement of extension range-of-motion and soft tissue balance goals with less bone resection and less soft tissue release. This allows for bone stock preservation and minimization of trauma due to soft tissue release. Further study is required to correlate these results with patient reported outcomes and determine their clinical significance. Level of evidence III — retrospective cohort study.