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
Mo Saffarini,Robin Canetti,Julien Henry,Kinga Michalewska,Jacobus H. Müller,Michael T. Hirschmann,European Knee Associates (EKA)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12494
2024-10-28
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy
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.
surgery,orthopedics,sport sciences