Patient-Reported Outcomes of Kinematic vs Mechanical Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment method for severe osteoarthritis of the knee. Poor alignment of a knee replacement has been associated with suboptimal clinical results. Traditionally, mechanical alignment (MA) has been considered the gold standard. In light of reports of decreased satisfaction with TKA, a new technique called kinematic alignment (KA) has been developed. The purpose of this study is to (1) review the results of KA and MA for TKA in randomized controlled trials based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Scores, (2) perform a meta-analyses of the randomized controlled trials with baseline and follow-up values of these parameters, and (3) discuss other shortcomings of this literature from the perspective of study design and execution. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed a systematic review of the English literature using the Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases searching for randomized controlled trials of MA vs KA in TKA. Of the initial 481 published reports, 6 studies were included in the final review for meta-analysis. The individual studies were then analyzed to evaluate for risks of bias and inconsistencies of methodology. Results: A majority of studies demonstrated low risk of bias. All studies had fundamental technical issues by utilizing different techniques to achieve KA vs MA. There was no significant difference between KA and MA in these studies. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in any outcomes measured between KA and MA in TKA. Both statistical and methodological factors diminish the value of these conclusions.