| Summary: | Background: Both restricted inverse kinematic alignment (iKA) and gap balancing aim for a balanced total knee arthroplasty by adjusting femoral component position based on ligamentous gaps. However, iKA targets a native tibial joint line vs resecting perpendicular to the mechanical axis. This study compares how these 2 techniques impact the balance and laxity throughout flexion and joint line obliquity (JLO), arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA), and the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK). Methods: Two surgeons performed 75 robot-assisted iKA total knee arthroplasties. A digital joint tensioner collected laxity data throughout flexion before femoral resection. The femoral component position was determined using predictive gap-planning to optimize the balance throughout flexion. Planned gap balancing (pGB) simulations were performed for each case using neutral tibial resections. Mediolateral balance, laxity, and CPAK were compared among pGB, planned iKA (piKA), and final iKA. Results: Both piKA and pGB had similar mediolateral balance and laxity, with mean differences <0.4 mm. piKA had a lower mean absolute difference from native JLO than pGB (3 ± 2° vs 7 ± 4°, P < .001). aHKA was similar (P > .05) between pGB and piKA. piKA recreated a more native CPAK distribution, with types I-V being the most common ones, while most pGB knees were of type V, VII, and III. Final iKA and piKA had similar mediolateral balance and laxity, with a root-mean-square error <1.4 mm. Conclusions: Although balance, laxity, and aHKA were similar between piKA and pGB, piKA better restored native JLO and CPAK phenotypes. The neutral tibial resection moved most pGB knees into types V, VII, and III. Surgeons should appreciate how the alignment strategy affects knee phenotypes.
|
|---|