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).

CPAK classification detect the real knee joint apex position in less than half of the knees

CPAK classification cannot be used to determine segmental coronal extra‐articular knee deformity

Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs

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

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

Measurement of femoral posterior condylar offset and posterior tibial slope in normal knees based on 3D reconstruction

Radiological Assessment of Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Phenotypes in the Romanian Population

The Distribution of Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Classification in a Sample of Spanish Southeast Osteoarthritic Population: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study

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

Significant difference in femoral torsion between coronal plane alignment of the knee type 1 and 4

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

Transepicondylar Line and Condylar Line As Parameters for Axial Alignment in Knee Arthroplasty.

Functional knee phenotypes appear to be more suitable for the Chinese OA population compared with CPAK classification: A study based on 3D CT reconstruction models

Coronal Plane Alignment Classification of Arthritic Knees in a South Indian Population and Functional Outcome Comparison Post-mechanical Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty

Not all knees are the same

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

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

Patient sex and race are associated with differences in coronal plane alignment classification in native arthritic knees

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

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

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