Abstract:Purpose To identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on pre‐ and post‐operative radiographic angles (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and hip–knee–ankle [HKA] angle) of unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods Two authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews, with or without meta‐analyses, that reported on TKA outcomes using unrestricted kinematic alignment. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and meta‐analyses was independently assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR‐2). The effect size with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for radiographic angles was extracted from the systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The characteristics of clinical studies included in systematic reviews were listed and tabulated. Pre‐ and post‐operative MPTA, LDFA and HKA angles were summarised using meta‐analytic random‐effects models. Results Nineteen records were eligible for data extraction. Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses included 44 clinical studies, of which 31 were on unrestricted kinematic alignment and 13 were on restricted versions of kinematic alignment. None of the included systematic reviews or meta‐analyses fulfiled all seven critical AMSTAR‐2 domains. Few comparative studies reported both pre‐ and post‐operative angles (LDFA, n = 3; MPTA, n = 4; and HKA angle, n = 10). Mean pre‐ and post‐operative LDFAs were 88.0° (range, 83–94°) and 88.0° (range, 80–96°) for the kinematic alignment group, and 88.2° (range, 83–95°) and 90.2° (range, 84–97°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre‐ and post‐operative MPTAs were 86.0° (range, 78–93°) and 87.1° (range, 78–94°) for the kinematic alignment group and 86.4° (range, 77–94°) and 89.6° (range, 84–95°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre‐ and post‐operative HKA angles were −3.3° (range, −24° to 24°) and −0.3° (range, −10° to 8°) for the kinematic alignment group and −6.9° (range, −25° to 7°) and −0.9° (range, −8° to 7°) for the mechanical alignment group. Conclusion Most systematic reviews and meta‐analyses that report outcomes of TKA using kinematic alignment do not distinguish between the different versions of kinematic alignment. The clinical studies included in systematic reviews are limited and inconsistent in their reporting of radiographic angles. Different alignment strategies are often grouped under the umbrella term of kinematic alignment, which contributes to conflicting reports, confusion and unresolved questions regarding the efficacy of true unrestricted kinematic alignment. Level of Evidence Level IV.

What Is the Correlation between Coronal Plane Alignment Measured on Pre- and Postoperative Weight-bearing Radiographs and Intraoperative Navigation When Stress Is Applied to the Knee?

Large multiplanar changes to native alignment have no apparent impact on clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty

Arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle and stressed hip-knee-ankle angle: equivalent methods for estimating constitutional lower limb alignment in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty

Analysis of correlation between medial joint line change and lower limb coronal alignment after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Variability of three-dimensional knee morphology cannot be effectively assessed using a coronal plane knee alignment classification in total knee arthroplasty patients

Correlation Between Preoperative and Postoperative Alignment and Kinematic Gait in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Functional preoperative assessment of coronal knee laxity better predicts postoperative patient outcomes than intraoperative surgeon‐defined laxity in total knee arthroplasty

Mechanical Alignment in Knee Replacement Homogenizes Postoperative Coronal Hip–Knee–Ankle Angle in Varus Knees: A Navigation-Based Study

No Difference in Limb Alignment Between Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty

Preoperative Joint Line Convergence Angle as an Indicator of Clinical Outcomes and Accuracy of Alignment Correction After Double-Level Osteotomy

Sparse and inconsistent reporting of pre‐ and post‐operative radiographic angles of total knee arthroplasty using true unrestricted kinematic alignment: An umbrella review and secondary meta‐analysis

Comparison of CT and EOS in assessing coronal lower limb alignment when planning total knee arthroplasty

Pre- and postoperative Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee classification and its impact on clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty

[Effect of the Surgical Time and Coronalmechanical Alignment after Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Computer Navigation System, Traditionalor 3D Printing Patient-Specific Instruments].

Preserving coronal knee alignment of the knee (CPAK) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty correlates with superior patient-reported outcomes

Influence of lower limb rotation in navigated alignment analysis: implications for high tibial osteotomies

The effect of different alignment strategies on trochlear orientation after total knee arthroplasty

Accuracy and outcome of a handheld accelerometer-based navigation device compared to conventional alignment method in total knee arthroplasty in a Chinese population

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: What is the optimal alignment correction to achieve success? The role of kinematic alignment

Restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty with an anatomically designed implant can restore constitutional coronal lower limb alignment

No influence of coronal laxity and alignment on lift-off after well-balanced and aligned total knee arthroplasty