How accurate is anatomic limb alignment in predicting mechanical limb alignment after total knee arthroplasty?

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Moon Jong Chang³  Sang-Hee Choi²  Seung Ah Lee¹ 

[1] Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea;Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea;Joint Reconstruction Center, Gwangmyeong Saeum Hospital, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea

关键词: Total knee arthroplasty;    Outcome;    Accuracy;    Mechanical alignment;    Anatomic alignment;   

Others  :  1232699
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0756-2

 received in 2015-06-15, accepted in 2015-10-05,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Anatomic limb alignment often differs from mechanical limb alignment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We sought to assess the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for each of three commonly used ranges for anatomic limb alignment (3-9°, 5-10° and 2-10°) in predicting an acceptable range (neutral ± 3°) for mechanical limb alignment after TKA. We also assessed whether the accuracy of anatomic limb alignment was affected by anatomic variation.

Methods

This retrospective study included 314 primary TKAs. The alignment of the limb was measured with both anatomic and mechanical methods of measurement. We also measured anatomic variation, including the femoral bowing angle, tibial bowing angle, and neck-shaft angle of the femur. All angles were measured on the same full-length standing anteroposterior radiographs. The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for each range of anatomic limb alignment were calculated and compared using mechanical limb alignment as the reference standard. The associations between the accuracy of anatomic limb alignment and anatomic variation were also determined.

Results

The range of 2-10° for anatomic limb alignment showed the highest accuracy, but it was only 73 % (3-9°, 65 %; 5-10°, 67 %). The specificity of the 2-10° range was 81 %, which was higher than that of the other ranges (3-9°, 69 %; 5-10°, 67 %). However, the sensitivity of the 2-10° range to predict varus malalignment was only 16 % (3-9°, 35 %; 5-10°, 68 %). In addition, the sensitivity of the 2-10° range to predict valgus malalignment was only 43 % (3-9°, 71 %; 5-10°, 43 %). The accuracy of anatomical limb alignment was lower for knees with greater femoral (odds ratio = 1.2) and tibial (odds ratio = 1.2) bowing.

Conclusions

Anatomic limb alignment did not accurately predict mechanical limb alignment after TKA, and its accuracy was affected by anatomic variation. Thus, alignment after TKA should be assessed by measuring mechanical alignment rather than anatomic alignment.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lee et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1991; 73:709-714.
• [2]Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Harimaya K, Matsunobu T, Iwamoto Y. Changes in knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1999; 14:566-570.
• [3]Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 299:153-156.
• [4]Chang CB, Choi JY, Koh IJ, Seo ES, Seong SC, Kim TK. What should be considered in using standard knee radiographs to estimate mechanical alignment of the knee? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010; 18:530-538.
• [5]Hinman RS, May RL, Crossley KM. Is there an alternative to the full-leg radiograph for determining knee joint alignment in osteoarthritis? Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 55:306-313.
• [6]Jessup DE, Worland RL, Clelland C, Arredondo J. Restoration of limb alignment in total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and methods. J South Orthop Assoc. 1997; 6:37-47.
• [7]Rauh MA, Boyle J, Mihalko WM, Phillips MJ, Bayers-Thering M, Krackow KA. Reliability of measuring long-standing lower extremity radiographs. Orthopedics. 2007; 30:299-303.
• [8]Hunter DJ, Niu J, Felson DT, Harvey WF, Gross KD, McCree P, Aliabadi P, Sack B, Zhang Y. Knee alignment does not predict incident osteoarthritis: the Framingham osteoarthritis study. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 56:1212-1218.
• [9]Ritter MA, Davis KE, Davis P, Farris A, Malinzak RA, Berend ME, Meding JB. Preoperative malalignment increases risk of failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95:126-131.
• [10]Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93:1588-1596.
• [11]Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J. The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:45-53.
• [12]Magnussen RA, Weppe F, Demey G, Servien E, Lustig S. Residual varus alignment does not compromise results of TKAs in patients with preoperative varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469:3443-3450.
• [13]Skytta ET, Lohman M, Tallroth K, Remes V. Comparison of standard anteroposterior knee and hip-to-ankle radiographs in determining the lower limb and implant alignment after total knee arthroplasty. Scand J Surg. 2009; 98:250-253.
• [14]Tang WM, Zhu YH, Chiu KY. Axial alignment of the lower extremity in Chinese adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82-A:1603-1608.
• [15]Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;13–14.
• [16]Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB. Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:20-32.
• [17]Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:3-19.
• [18]Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP. Coronal bowing of the femur and tibia in Chinese: its incidence and effects on total knee arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007; 15:32-36.
• [19]Nagamine R, Inoue S, Miura H, Matsuda S, Iwamoto Y. Femoral shaft bowing influences the correction angle for high tibial osteotomy. J Orthop Sci. 2007; 12:214-218.
• [20]Lasam MP, Lee KJ, Chang CB, Kang YG, Kim TK. Femoral lateral bowing and varus condylar orientation are prevalent and affect axial alignment of TKA in Koreans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471:1472-1483.
• [21]Matsumoto T, Hashimura M, Takayama K, Ishida K, Kawakami Y, Matsuzaki T, Nakano N, Matsushita T, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M. A radiographic analysis of alignment of the lower extremities--initiation and progression of varus-type knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015; 23:217-223.
• [22]Koh IJ, Kim TK, Chang CB, Cho HJ, In Y. Trends in Use of Total Knee Arthroplasty in Korea From 2001 to 2010. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 417(5):1441-50.
• [23]Issa SN, Dunlop D, Chang A, Song J, Prasad PV, Guermazi A, Peterfy C, Cahue S, Marshall M, Kapoor D, Hayes K, Sharma L. Full-limb and knee radiography assessments of varus-valgus alignment and their relationship to osteoarthritis disease features by magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57:398-406.
• [24]Colebatch AN, Hart DJ, Zhai G, Williams FM, Spector TD, Arden NK. Effective measurement of knee alignment using AP knee radiographs. Knee. 2009; 16:42-45.
• [25]Kraus VB, Vail TP, Worrell T, McDaniel G. A comparative assessment of alignment angle of the knee by radiographic and physical examination methods. Arthritis Rheum. 2005; 52:1730-1735.
• [26]Nam D, Maher PA, Robles A, McLawhorn AS, Mayman DJ. Variability in the relationship between the distal femoral mechanical and anatomical axes in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28:798-801.