Kinematic Alignment Technique for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty


Overview

The kinematic alignment (KA) technique for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been successfully performed for decades and presents potential clinical benefits. The discussion and videos in this chapter assist the surgeon in understanding how to perform KA UKA with the calipered technique. The first section defines the KA UKA technique; the second section provides the rationale; the third lists the potential benefits of this technique and summarizes the evidence; the final section briefly describes the surgical technique for medial KA UKA. Our objective is to encourage surgeons to use the KA UKA technique because it is a simple, safe method with a more physiologic outcome. It presents multiple potential advantages over the traditional MA technique, and further investigations are needed to better define its clinical impact and the limits for alignment of components.

Definition

See Discussion on the definition of the kinematic alignment technique for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Traditional techniques for partial or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) recommend positioning components in a systematic orientation, thereby neglecting the anatomic variation of the individual knee. The standard for decades has been to frontally align the components perpendicular to the femoral and tibial mechanical axes, and to produce an identical tibial slope for all patients; this is known as the mechanical alignment (MA) technique for TKA and UKA. Although MA prosthetic knees altered the knee anatomy and physiologic soft tissue balance, the technique was thought to improve the reproducibility of the implantation. Nevertheless, function and perception of these MA prosthetic knees have been disappointing, , despite great advancements in implant design and surgical precision. , This has led to the development of more personalized and physiologic techniques of implantation, which respect the individual knee anatomy and soft tissue balance, known as kinematic alignment (KA; Fig. 15.1 ). ,

Figure 15.1, This figure illustrates the multiple knee arthroplasty options for treating osteoarthritic varus knees. The kinematic alignment ( KA ) techniques for unicompartmental ( UKA ) and total ( TKA ) knee arthroplasty are the only options that aim to restore the patient’s pre-arthritic anatomy and soft-tissue balance; they are de facto personalized and physiological methods to implant knee prosthetic components. AA, Anatomical alignment, aMA, adjusted mechanical alignment; MA, mechanical alignment; rKA, restricted kinematic alignment.

Similar to the KA TKA, the goal of the KA UKA is to coalign UKA components with the kinematic axes that dictate native motion of the tibia around the femur. , Components are therefore aligned parallel and perpendicular to the cylindrical axis and longitudinal tibial axis, respectively ( Fig. 15.2 ). In simplistic terms, the KA technique for UKA aims to produce a “true resurfacing,” restoring the native joint line level and orientation in the implanted knee compartment ( Fig. 15.3 ). In the case of medial UKA, the individual medial and posterior slopes of the medial tibia plateau and the frontal and axial orientation of the medial femoral condyle are therefore restored ( Fig. 15.3 ). The KA technique for UKA was popularized decades ago under the name ‘Cartier Angle’ technique. , Philippe Cartier developed this technique in the 1970s and was influenced by works from Christophe Levigne and Michel Bonnin (Lyon School), who first described the proximal tibia metaphyseal-epiphyseal axis.

Figure 15.2, This figure illustrated the “academic definition” of a kinematically aligned medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Implants are aligned parallel to the cylindrical axis (or flexion axis of the tibia— green line ) and perpendicular to the longitudinal tibial axis (or rotational axis of the tibia— yellow line ). These knee kinematic axes dictate the movement of the tibia around the femur.

Figure 15.3, This figure illustrates the “simple definition” of a kinematically aligned medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Implants aim for a “true resurfacing” of the medial knee compartment. Implant thickness equals the sum of the bone cut thickness, the 1-mm saw kerf, and the 2 mm of cartilage loss. By doing so, the physiologic knee soft tissue balance and kinematics are likely to be restored, and optimal clinical outcomes generated.

The KA and MA techniques differ at almost every step of the procedure (see the Surgical Technique section further in this chapter), with different goals for aligning UKA components. It is therefore important when assessing UKA component performance to consider the technique of alignment by distinguishing between KA and MA positioning of components ( Fig. 15.4 ). The terminology describing the alignment technique is derived from the reference landmark used to align UKA components: the KA and MA techniques respectively align the UKA components on the kinematic axes of the knee and the mechanical axis of long bones ( Figs. 15.4 and 15.5 ).

Figure 15.4, This figure illustrates the two main options for aligning medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ( UKA ) components. The personalized and physiologic kinematic alignment ( KA ) technique aims to position components on the knee kinematic axes that dictate movement of the tibia around the femur. The systematic mechanical alignment ( MA ) technique refers to the long-bone mechanical axis to orientate the components, which is not physiologic. Green line : cylindrical axis, yellow line : longitudinal tibial axis, blue line : mechanical axis of femur (upper line) and tibia (lower line) .

Figure 15.5, This composite of radiographs illustrates the frontal radiographic appearance of kinematically (left image) and mechanically (right image) aligned medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). When kinematically aligned, the UKA components are positioned on the kinematic axes that dictate the motion of the tibia around the femur. When mechanically aligned, the UKA components are positioned alongside the tibial and femoral mechanical axes. Note the mechanical alignment technique has resulted in a tibial implant that may concentrate excessive load on the medial cortex, and result in a slight eccentric loading of the polyethylene liner by the femoral component.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here