What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to compare kinematic and mechanical alignment techniques in total knee arthroplasty and their impact on clinical outcomes.

April 17, 2026Open Access

Kinematic Alignment Produces Improved Flexion and Forgotten Joint Scores Compared to Mechanical Alignment in Primary Medial-Pivot Knee Arthroplasty

Key Points

The study aims to compare kinematic and mechanical alignment techniques in total knee arthroplasty and their impact on clinical outcomes.
Conducted a prospective, multicenter study with patients undergoing knee arthroplasty.
One site utilized kinematic alignment; three used mechanical alignment.
Standardized surgical techniques were followed, including specific instrumentation and fixation methods.
Measured Forgotten Joint Score and range of motion at multiple postoperative time points.
Kinematic alignment resulted in significantly better mean flexion at 2 years (132° vs. 122°; p < 0.0001).
Forgotten Joint Scores were higher in the kinematic group (68 vs. 60; p = 0.04).
Lower rate of manipulation procedures for arthrofibrosis in the kinematic group (2% vs. 7%; p = 0.05).

Abstract

Purpose: Debates continue over which surgical approach yields better outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty: kinematic alignment or mechanical alignment. A prospective, multicenter study was conducted comparing these strategies in patients with "ball-in-socket" medial-pivot implants. We hypothesized that kinematic alignment would yield superior outcomes. Methods: Participants undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty with medial-pivot implants were included. One site used unrestricted kinematic alignment, while three utilized mechanical alignment. Surgical techniques were standardized, including tourniquet use, medial parapatellar arthrotomy, patella resurfacing, posterior cruciate ligament sacrifice, manual instrumentation, and cement fixation. The Forgotten Joint Score and range of motion were measured at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively, with preoperative range of motion assessed as well. Results: A total of 258 patients were enrolled, comprising 101 with kinematic alignment and 157 with mechanical alignment. The mean flexion and Forgotten Joint Score were significantly better for the kinematic alignment group at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. At 2 years, mean flexion was 132° ± 8.6º for kinematic alignment and 122° ± 9.9º for mechanical alignment (p < 0.0001), and the Forgotten Joint Score was 68 ± 26.3 for kinematic and 60 ± 29 for mechanical alignment (p = 0.04). Furthermore, manipulation procedures for arthrofibrosis were required at a significantly lower rate in the kinematic group (2% vs. 7%; p = 0.05). Conclusion: This two-year study demonstrated that kinematic alignment led to improved mean range of motion, Forgotten Joint Scores, and a lower manipulation rate compared to mechanical alignment in patients with medial-pivot implants. Evidence specific to medial-pivot devices implanted with different alignment philosophies remains limited, and our study addresses this gap by focusing on the medial-pivot implant in a prospective multi-center cohort. Our findings suggest that kinematic alignment offers better clinical outcomes with "ball-in-socket" medial-pivot implants.

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper