Abstract:Background: There is continuing debate about the ideal philosophy for component alignment in TKA. However, there are limited long-term functional and radiographic data on randomized comparisons of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment. Questions/purposes: We present the 10-year follow-up findings of a single-center, multisurgeon randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing these two alignment philosophies in terms of the following questions: (1) Is there a difference in PROM scores? (2) Is there a difference in survivorship free from revision or reoperation for any cause? (3) Is there a difference in survivorship free from radiographic loosening? Methods: Ninety-nine patients undergoing primary TKA for osteoarthritis were randomized to either the mechanical alignment (n = 50) or kinematic alignment (n = 49) group. Eligibility for the study was patients undergoing unilateral TKA for osteoarthritis who were suitable for a cruciate-retaining TKA and could undergo MRI. Patients who had previous osteotomy, coronal alignment > 15° from neutral, a fixed flexion deformity > 15°, or instability whereby constrained components were being considered were excluded. Computer navigation was used in the mechanical alignment group, and patient-specific cutting blocks were used in the kinematic alignment group. At 10 years, 86% (43) of the patients in the mechanical alignment group and 80% (39) in the kinematic alignment group were available for follow-up performed as a per-protocol analysis. The PROMs that we assessed included the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC, Forgotten Joint Score, and EuroQol 5-Dimension score. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess survivorship free from reoperation (any reason) and revision (change or addition of any component). A single blinded observer assessed radiographs for signs of aseptic loosening (as defined by the presence of progressive radiolucent lines in two or more zones), which was reported as survivorship free from loosening. Results: At 10 years, there was no difference in any PROM score measured between the groups. Ten-year survivorship free from revision (components removed or added) likewise did not differ between the groups (96% [95% CI 91% to 99%] for the mechanical alignment group and 91% [95% CI 83% to 99%] for the kinematic alignment group; p = 0.38). There were two revisions in the mechanical alignment group (periprosthetic fracture, deep infection) and four in the kinematic alignment group (two secondary patella resurfacings, two deep infections). There was no statistically significant difference in reoperations for any cause between the two groups. There was no difference with regard to survivorship free from loosening on radiographic review (χ2 = 1.3; p = 0.52) (progressive radiolucent lines seen at 10 years were 0% for mechanical alignment and 3% for kinematic alignment). Conclusion: Like the 2-year and 5-year outcomes previously reported, 10-year follow-up for this RCT demonstrated no functional or radiographic difference in outcomes between mechanical alignment and kinematic alignment TKA. Anticipated functional benefits of kinematic alignment were not demonstrated, and revision-free survivorship at 10 years did not differ between the two groups. Given the unknown long-term impact of kinematic alignment with regard to implant position (especially tibial component varus), we must conclude that mechanical alignment remains the reference standard for TKA. We could not demonstrate any advantage to kinematic alignment at 10-year follow-up. Level of evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.

No Difference in Mechanical Alignment and Femoral Component Placement Between Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Conventional Instrumentation in TKA

[Effect of femoral component rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty by using 3D-printed patient-specific instruments: a prospective randomized control study].

Patient-Specific or Conventional Instrumentations: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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

Efficiency assessment of intelligent patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Patient-Specific Instruments Based on Knee Joint Computed Tomography and Full-Length Lower Extremity Radiography in Total Knee Replacement.

Patient-specific instrumentation improves functional kinematics of minimally-invasive total knee replacements as revealed by computerized 3D fluoroscopy

Effect of 3D Printed Patient-Specific Cutting Guide on Patellar Height and Joint Line Position in Total Knee Arthroplasty

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

3D-printed patient-specific instrumentation decreases the variability of patellar height in total knee arthroplasty

Patient‐specific instrumentation improved clinical outcome and implant survival but is not superior compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty: Ten years follow‐up of a multicenter double‐blind randomized controlled trial

Comparison of the Accuracy and Efficacy of Different Assistive Techniques in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Network Meta-Analysis.

[Research Progress on Comparison of the Application Effects Between Personal Specific Instrumentation and Computer-Assisted Navigation Surgery in Total Knee Arthroplasty].

Preoperative evaluation of femoral and tibial sagittal alignment in robotic-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty and consequences for practice

Quadriceps-sparing Versus Traditional Medial Parapatellar Approaches for Total Knee Arthroplasty: a Meta-Analysis

Patient-specific instrumentation combined with a new tool for gap balancing is useful in total knee replacement: a 3-year follow-up of a retrospective study

[Comparison of Alignment and Position of Prosthesis Between Portable Accelerometer-Based Navigation Device and Conventional Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty with Valgus Deformity].

Systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcomes and innovations in Total Knee Arthroplasty: KINEMATIC, PERSONALIZED KNEE vs. CONVENTIONAL

Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia Vs Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Higher satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty using restricted inverse kinematic alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment

No Difference in 10-year Clinical or Radiographic Outcomes Between Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment in TKA: A Randomized Trial