Methods of alignment in total knee arthroplasty, systematic review.

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-05-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.117769
Juan Segura-Nuez, Carlos Martín-Hernández, Julián Carlos Segura-Nuez, Julián Carlos Segura-Mata
{"title":"Methods of alignment in total knee arthroplasty, systematic review.","authors":"Juan Segura-Nuez, Carlos Martín-Hernández, Julián Carlos Segura-Nuez, Julián Carlos Segura-Mata","doi":"10.52965/001c.117769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a very frequent surgery, one in five patients is not completely satisfied. Mechanical alignment (MA) is the most popular technique for implanting TKA. However, to improve clinical outcomes, new techniques that aim to rebuild the native alignment of the knee have been developed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the available clinical trials and observational studies comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of different methods of alignment (kinematic, anatomic, functional) to MA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review is performed comparing results of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaires (WOMAC, OKS, KSS, KOOS, FJS), radiological angles (HKA, mLDFA, MPTA, JLOA, femoral rotation and tibial slope) and range of motion (ROM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Kinematic and functional alignment show a slight tendency to obtain better PROMs compared to mechanical alignment. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Nevertheless, these results are not consistent in every study. Anatomic alignment showed no significant differences compared to mechanical alignment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Kinematic alignment is an equal or slightly better alternative than mechanical alignment for patients included in this study. However, the difference between methods does not seem to be enough to explain the high percentage of dissatisfied patients. Studies implementing lax inclusion and exclusion criteria would be needed to resemble conditions of patients assisted in daily surgical practice. It would be interesting to study patient's knee phenotypes, to notice if any method of alignment is significantly better for any constitutional deviation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"16 ","pages":"117769"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11142931/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.117769","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a very frequent surgery, one in five patients is not completely satisfied. Mechanical alignment (MA) is the most popular technique for implanting TKA. However, to improve clinical outcomes, new techniques that aim to rebuild the native alignment of the knee have been developed.

Objective: The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the available clinical trials and observational studies comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of different methods of alignment (kinematic, anatomic, functional) to MA.

Methods: A systematic review is performed comparing results of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaires (WOMAC, OKS, KSS, KOOS, FJS), radiological angles (HKA, mLDFA, MPTA, JLOA, femoral rotation and tibial slope) and range of motion (ROM).

Results: Kinematic and functional alignment show a slight tendency to obtain better PROMs compared to mechanical alignment. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Nevertheless, these results are not consistent in every study. Anatomic alignment showed no significant differences compared to mechanical alignment.

Conclusion: Kinematic alignment is an equal or slightly better alternative than mechanical alignment for patients included in this study. However, the difference between methods does not seem to be enough to explain the high percentage of dissatisfied patients. Studies implementing lax inclusion and exclusion criteria would be needed to resemble conditions of patients assisted in daily surgical practice. It would be interesting to study patient's knee phenotypes, to notice if any method of alignment is significantly better for any constitutional deviation.

全膝关节置换术中的对位方法,系统综述。
导言:尽管全膝关节置换术(TKA)是一种非常常见的手术,但每五名患者中就有一人对手术不完全满意。机械对位(MA)是植入 TKA 的最常用技术。然而,为了改善临床疗效,人们开发了旨在重建膝关节原生对位的新技术:本研究旨在对现有的临床试验和观察性研究进行系统回顾,比较不同对位方法(运动学、解剖学、功能学)与机械对位的临床和放射学结果:方法:对患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)问卷(WOMAC、OKS、KSS、KOOS、FJS)、放射学角度(HKA、mLDFA、MPTA、JLOA、股骨旋转和胫骨斜度)和运动范围(ROM)的结果进行了系统回顾比较:结果:与机械性对位相比,运动学和功能性对位显示出获得更好的PROMs的轻微趋势。各组间的并发症发生率无明显差异。尽管如此,这些结果在每项研究中并不一致。解剖对位与机械对位相比无明显差异:结论:对于本研究中的患者来说,运动学对位是一种与机械对位相同或略胜一筹的替代方法。然而,不同方法之间的差异似乎不足以解释为什么不满意的患者比例很高。研究需要采用宽松的纳入和排除标准,以类似于日常手术实践中辅助患者的情况。对患者的膝关节表型进行研究也很有意义,可以发现是否有哪种对位方法对任何体质偏差的患者都有明显的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedic Reviews
Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
122
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信