• Sébastien Parratte, Zakee Azmi, Jeremy Daxelet, Jean-Noël Argenson, and Cécile Batailler.
• International Knee and Joint Centre, Hazza Bin Zayed St., P.O. Box 46,705, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. sebparratte@gmail.com.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Jul 5.

IntroductionMore personalized alignment techniques in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have recently been described particularly for the young and active patients. Performing the ideal tibial cut might be challenging with a conventional ancillary. Therefore the aims of this study were: (1) to describe specific tibial landmarks to optimize the tibial cut in TKA; (2) to compare the accuracy of the tibial cut with these landmarks compared to a conventional technique.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study compared primary TKAs performed using a conventional technique with extramedullary guide associated with specific tibial landmarks. For each case, one control patient was matched based on body mass index (BMI), age, preoperative Hip Knee Ankle (HKA) angle, and Medial Proximal Tibial Angle (MPTA). All control patients were operated by the same surgeon and similar conventional technique but without landmarks. The MPTA target was to reproduce preoperative deformity with a 3° of varus limit. 34 TKA were included in each group. There was no preoperative difference between both groups. Mean age was 63 years old ± 8. Mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 ± 5. Mean HKA was 170.6° ± 2.5. Mean MPTA was 85.1° ± 2.3. The radiographic assessment was performed preoperatively and at 2 months: HKA, mechanical Medial Distal Femoral Angle (mMDFA), MPTA, tibial slope, restoration of the joint line-height.ResultsThe tibial landmarks corresponded to the line of insertion of the deep medial collateral ligament fibers extended to the capsular insertion above the Gerdy tubercle. The postoperative MPTA was significantly more varus (87.2° ± 1.6 in landmark group versus 88.3° ± 2.2; p = 0.027) and closer to preoperative bone deformity in landmark group (p = 0.002) with significantly less outliers than in the conventional group. There was no significant difference between both groups postoperatively for HKA (175.4° ± 2.3 versus 175.9° ± 2.5; p = 0.42); mMDFA (88.9° ± 2.3 versus 88.2° ± 2.1; p = 0.18); tibial slope (82.6° ± 1.9 versus 82.4° ± 2.6; p = 0.67), the restoration of the joint line-height (1.5 mm ± 2 versus 1.8 mm ± 2; p = 0.56).ConclusionSpecific tibial landmarks during TKA can be used to increase the accuracy of the tibial cut when using personalized alignment techniques in TKA.Level Of EvidenceIV.© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

4 keywords...

hide…