Abstract:The results of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) may be compromised by excessive joint line (JL) elevation. It is critical but challenging in reestablishing the JL in rTKA. Previous studies have confirmed that, biomechanically and clinically, JL elevation should not exceed 4 mm. Image-based studies described several approaches to locate the JL intraoperatively, however magnification errors could occur. In this cadaveric study, we aim to define an accurate and reliable method to determine the JL. Thirteen male and eleven female cadavers were used, with an average age of death being 48.3 years. The transepicondylar width (TEW), the distance from the medial (MEJL) and lateral (LEJL) epicondyle, adductor tubercle (ATJL), fibular head (FHJL) and tibial tubercle (TTJL) to the JL were measured in 48 knees. Intra- and interobserver reliability and validity were tested prior to any additional analysis. Pearson correlation and linear regression analysis were used to examine the correlations between landmark-JL distances (LEJL, MEJL, ATJL, FHJL and TTJL) and the TEW, and to further derive models for intraoperative JL determination. The accuracy of different models, quantified by errors between estimated and measured landmark-JL distances, was compared using the Friedman and post hoc Dunn tests. The intra- and inter-observer measurements for TEW, MEJL, LEJL, ATJL, TTJL and FHJL did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Between genders, significant differences were found on TEW, MEJL, LEJL, ATJL, FHJL and TTJL (p < 0.05). There was no association between TEW and either FHJL or TTJL (p > 0.05), while ATJL, MEJL, and LEJL were found to be correlated with TEW (p < 0.05). Six models were derived: (1) MEJL = 0.37*TEW (r = 0.384), (2) LEJL = 0.28*TEW (r = 0.380), (3) ATJL = 0.47*TEW (r = 0.608), (4) MEJL = 0.413*TEW − 4.197 (R2 = 0.473), (5) LEJL = 0.236*TEW + 3.373 (R2 = 0.326), (6) ATJL = 0.455*TEW + 1.440 (R2 = 0.556). Errors were defined as deviations between estimated and actual landmark-JL distances. The mean absolute value of the errors, created by Model 1–6 was 3.18 ± 2.25, 2.53 ± 2.15, 2.64 ± 2.2, 1.85 ± 1.61, 1.60 ± 1.59 and 1.71 ± 1.5, respectively. The error could be limited to 4 mm in 72.9%, 83.3%, 72.9%, 87.5%, 87.5%, and 93.8% of the cases by referencing Model 1–6, respectively. Compared to previous image-based measurements, the current cadaveric study most closely resembles a realistic view of intraoperative settings and could circumvents magnification errors. We recommend using Model 6, the JL can be best estimated by referencing the AT and the ATJL can be calculated as ATJL (mm) = 0.455*TEW (mm) + 1.440 (mm).

Joint line convergence angle should be considered when constitutional alignment is predicted based on arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle: a retrospective cross-sectional observational study

Joint line convergence angle is the most associated alignment factor with the severity of medial knee osteoarthritis

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

Effect of joint line orientation parameters on initial bone resection in mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective clinicoradiological correlation study

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

Large angular correction of arithmetic coronal alignment is associated with residual lateral laxity after total knee arthroplasty in varus knees for Japanese patients

Constitutional alignment predicts medial ligament balancing in mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty for varus knees

The femoral anterior tangent line could serve as a reliable alternative reference axis for distal femoral rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty: an MRI-based study

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

Identification of the Joint Line in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Multiple Linear Regression Model: a Cadaveric Study

An Accurate Method for Locating the Joint Line During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Radiologic Study in the Chinese Population

Joint‐line obliquity angle is significantly affected by hip abduction and adduction: A simulated analysis

Distribution of coronal plane alignment of the knee classification in Chinese osteoarthritic and healthy population: a retrospective cross-sectional observational study

Radiographic factors affecting contralateral knee alignment in patients with dysplastic hip osteoarthritis

Gender, BMI, and Age‐Related Variations in Lower Limb Alignment Parameters and CPAK Phenotypes in Chinese Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis

Adjusted planning based on the joint line convergence angle improves correction accuracy in the standing position after opening wedge high tibial osteotomy

How Do the Morphological Abnormalities of Femoral Head and Neck, Femoral Shaft and Femoral Condyle Affect the Occurrence and Development of Medial Knee Osteoarthritis

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

Comparison of accuracy for hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle by X-ray and knee motion analysis system and the relationships between HKA and gait posture

Inverse kinematic alignment accommodates native coronal knee alignment better in comparison to adjusted mechanical alignment and restricted kinematic alignment

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