Winnock de Grave Philip, Van Criekinge Tamaya, Luyckx Thomas, Moreels Robin, Gunst Paul, Claeys Kurt
Department Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Brugge, Belgium.
Department Orthopaedic Surgery, AZ Delta Roeselare, Brugsesteenweg 90, 8800, Roeselare, Belgium.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023 Nov;31(11):4692-4704. doi: 10.1007/s00167-023-07464-2. Epub 2023 Jun 14.
Patient-specific alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has shown promising patient-reported outcome measures; however, the clinical and biomechanical effects of restoring the native knee anatomy remain debated. The purpose of this study was to compare the gait pattern between a mechanically aligned TKA cohort (adjusted mechanical alignment-aMA) and a patient-specific alignment TKA cohort (inverse kinematic alignment-iKA).
At two years postoperatively, the aMA and iKA groups, each with 15 patients, were analyzed in a retrospective case-control study. All patients underwent TKA with robotic assistance (Mako, Stryker) through an identical perioperative protocol. The patients' demographics were identical. The control group comprised 15 healthy participants matched for age and gender. Gait analysis was performed with a 3D motion capture system (VICON). Data collection was conducted by a blinded investigator. The primary outcomes were knee flexion during walking, knee adduction moment during walking and spatiotemporal parameters (STPs). The secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS).
During walking, the maximum knee flexion did not differ between the iKA group (53.0°) and the control group (55.1°), whereas the aMA group showed lower amplitudes of sagittal motion (47.4°). In addition, the native limb alignment in the iKA group was better restored, and although more in varus, the knee adduction moments in the iKA group were not increased (225 N mm/kg) compared to aMA group (276 N mm/kg). No significant differences in STPs were observed between patients receiving iKA and healthy controls. Six of 7 STPs differed significantly between patients receiving aMA and healthy controls. The OKS was significantly better in patients receiving iKA than aMA: 45.4 vs. 40.9; p = 0.05. The FJS was significantly better in patients receiving iKA than aMA: 84.8 vs. 55.5; p = 0.002.
At two years postoperatively, the gait pattern showed greater resemblance to that in healthy controls in patients receiving iKA rather than aMA. The restoration of the native coronal limb alignment does not lead to increased knee adduction moments due to the restoration of the native tibial joint line obliquity.
Level III.
全膝关节置换术(TKA)中针对患者的对线调整已显示出良好的患者报告结局指标;然而,恢复自然膝关节解剖结构的临床和生物力学效果仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较机械对线TKA队列(调整后的机械对线—aMA)和针对患者的对线TKA队列(逆运动学对线—iKA)之间的步态模式。
在术后两年,对aMA组和iKA组各15例患者进行回顾性病例对照研究。所有患者均通过相同的围手术期方案在机器人辅助下(Mako,史赛克)接受TKA。患者的人口统计学特征相同。对照组由15名年龄和性别匹配的健康参与者组成。使用3D运动捕捉系统(VICON)进行步态分析。数据收集由一名盲法研究者进行。主要结局指标为步行时的膝关节屈曲、步行时的膝关节内收力矩和时空参数(STPs)。次要结局指标为牛津膝关节评分(OKS)和遗忘关节评分(FJS)。
在步行过程中,iKA组(53.0°)与对照组(55.1°)的最大膝关节屈曲无差异,而aMA组矢状面运动幅度较低(47.4°)。此外,iKA组的自然肢体对线恢复得更好,尽管内翻更多,但iKA组的膝关节内收力矩(225N·mm/kg)与aMA组(276N·mm/kg)相比并未增加。接受iKA的患者与健康对照组之间在STPs方面未观察到显著差异。接受aMA的患者与健康对照组之间7项STPs中有6项存在显著差异。接受iKA的患者的OKS显著优于aMA组:45.4对40.9;p = 0.05。接受iKA的患者的FJS显著优于aMA组:84.8对55.5;p = 0.002。
术后两年,接受iKA的患者的步态模式比接受aMA的患者更接近健康对照组。由于恢复了自然胫骨关节线倾斜度,自然冠状位肢体对线的恢复并未导致膝关节内收力矩增加。
III级。