Tibia‐first, gap‐balanced patient‐specific alignment technique achieves well‐balanced gaps in 90% of cases by rebuilding bony anatomy within boundaries

Abstract

AbstractPurposePatient‐specific alignment (PSA) technique tries to achieve balanced gaps and simultaneously rebuild the individual bony phenotype. The hypothesis was: PSA technique achieves balanced knees in a high percentage with more anatomical resections than adjusted mechanical alignment (AMA).MethodsThree hundred sixty‐seven patients underwent navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a tibia‐first gap‐balanced PSA technique. Resection boundaries for medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA) of 86–92°, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) of 86–92°, and hip‐knee‐ankle angle (HKA) of 175–185° were defined. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters of HKA, MPTA, mLDFA, and gap widths were recorded. Depending on the coronal deformity, the patients were divided into three groups: varus HKA < 178°; straight 178–182° and valgus HKA > 182°. The stability was analysed by assessing the difference between medial and lateral extension and flexion gaps as well as between flexion and extension gaps. All PSA measurements were compared with data from a previously published AMA series.ResultsPSA achieved balanced gaps in extension, flexion and between flexion/extension in over 90% of cases, being similar to AMA. In PSA, MPTA and mLDFA were restored within 1°, except in extreme varus (MPTA difference 2°) and valgus knees (mLDFA difference 3°). This was caused by the defined boundaries of the alignment technique. This individualised reconstruction led to significantly more anatomical resections of all tibia and femur resections.ConclusionA tibia‐first, gap‐balanced PSA technique achieves balanced joints in more than 90% of cases. By maintaining preoperative MPTA and mLDFA to a high extent, far more anatomical resections, compared to AMA were performed. Future studies need to be conducted to investigate whether those promising intraoperative results correlate with postoperative patient outcomes and whether patients outside the 5° corridor have higher failure rates.Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.