Postoperative clinical outcomes for kinematically, restricted kinematically, or mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

• Published in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2023-04, Vol.24 (1), p.322-14, Article 322
• Main Authors: Miura, Takanori, Takahashi, Tsuneari, Watanabe, Jun, Kataoka, Yuki, Ae, Ryusuke, Saito, Hidetomo, Takeshita, Katsushi, Miyakoshi, Naohisa
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anatomy; Ankle; Arthritis; Arthroplasty (knee); Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods; Bias; Biomechanical Phenomena; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; Humans; Joint replacement surgery; Kinematic alignment; Kinematics; Knee; Knee Joint - surgery; Knee Prosthesis; Mechanical alignment; Meta-analysis; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery; Patients; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Restricted kinematic alignment; Surgical techniques; Systematic review; Total knee arthroplasty; Total knee replacement
• ISSN: 1471-2474; 1471-2474
• DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06448-0

Mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MATKA) is a well-established procedure. Kinematically aligned TKA (KATKA) has been proposed to restore and preserve pre-arthritic knee anatomy. However, normal knee anatomy varies widely, and there have been concerns regarding restoring unusual anatomy. Accordingly, restricted KATKA (rKATKA) was introduced to reproduce constitutional knee anatomy within a safe range. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of the surgeries. We performed a database search on August 20, 2022, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two of the three surgical TKA techniques for knee osteoarthritis. We conducted a random-effects NMA within the frequentist framework and evaluated confidence in each outcome using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool. Ten RCTs with 1,008 knees and a median follow-up period of 1.5 years were included. The three methods might result in little to no difference in range of motion (ROM) between methods. In patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the KATKA might result in a slight improvement compared with the MATKA (standardized mean difference, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.78; very low confidence). There was little to no difference in revision risk between MATKA and KATKA. KATKA and rKATKA showed a slight valgus femoral component (mean difference [MD], -1.35; 95% CI, -1.95-[-0.75]; very low confidence; and MD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.63-[-0.81]; very low confidence, respectively) and a slight varus tibial component (MD, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.22-3.24; very low confidence; and MD, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.01-2.49; very low confidence, respectively) compared with MATKA. Tibial component inclination and hip-knee-ankle angle might result in little to no difference between the three procedures. KATKA and rKATKA showed similar ROM and PROMs and a slight variation in the coronal component alignment compared with MATKA. KATKA and rKATKA are acceptable methods in short- to mid-term follow-up periods. However, long-term clinical results in patients with severe varus deformity are still lacking. Surgeons should choose surgical procedures carefully. Further trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and subsequent revision risk.