Oussedik, Sam

Orthopaedic surgeons are currently faced with an overwhelming number of choices surrounding total knee arthroplasty (TKA), not only with the latest technologies and prostheses, but also fundamental decisions on alignment philosophies. From ‘mechanical’ to ‘adjusted mechanical’ to ‘restricted kinematic’ to ‘unrestricted kinematic’ — and how constitutional alignment relates to these — there is potential for ambiguity when thinking about and discussing such concepts. This annotation summarizes the various alignment strategies currently employed in TKA. It provides a clear framework and consistent language that will assist surgeons to compare confidently and contrast the concepts, while also discussing the latest opinions about alignment in TKA. Finally, it provides suggestions for applying consistent nomenclature to future research, especially as we explore the implications of 3D alignment patterns on patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):102–108.

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty is a well-documented phenomenon. Although many factors have been implicated, including modifiable and nonmodifiable patient factors, emphasis over the past decade has been on implant alignment and stability as both a cause of, and a solution to, this problem. Several alignment targets have evolved with a proliferation of techniques following the introduction of computer and robotic-assisted surgery. Mechanical alignment targets may achieve mechanically-sound alignment while ignoring the soft tissue envelope; kinematic alignment respects the soft tissue envelope while ignoring the mechanical environment. Functional alignment is proposed as a hybrid technique to allow mechanically-sound, soft tissue-friendly alignment targets to be identified and achieved.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):276–279.

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19.

Substantial healthcare resources have been devoted to computer navigation and patient-specific instrumentation systems that improve the reproducibility with which neutral mechanical alignment can be achieved following total knee replacement (TKR). This choice of alignment is based on the long-held tenet that the alignment of the limb post-operatively should be within 3° of a neutral mechanical axis. Several recent studies have demonstrated no significant difference in survivorship when comparing well aligned versus malaligned TKRs. Our aim was to review the anatomical alignment of the knee, the historical and contemporary data on a neutral mechanical axis in TKR, and the feasibility of kinematically-aligned TKRs. Review of the literature suggests that a neutral mechanical axis remains the optimal guide to alignment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:857–62.