Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 1142–1147 | Cite as

No difference in outcomes and gait analysis between mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods using robotic total knee arthroplasty

  • Je-Hyoung Yeo
  • Jong-Keun SeonEmail author
  • Dong-Hyun Lee
  • Eun-Kyoo Song



The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and perform gait analysis during walking to identify differences in kinematic and kinetic parameters between two alignment methods in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA).


Sixty patients were randomly assigned to undergo robotic-assisted TKA using either mechanical (30 patients) or kinematic (30 patients) alignment method. Clinical outcomes including varus and valgus laxities, range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Specific Surgery (HSS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Gait analysis of 3D spatiotemporal, kinetic, and kinematic parameters during walking was then performed for 10 age and gender matched patients of each group to determine differences between the two alignment methods.


The median follow-up duration of the mechanical method group was 8.7 (range 8.1–9.4) years and that of the kinematic method group was 8.4 (range 8.0–9.1) years. Clinical outcomes between the two groups showed no significant difference in HSS, WOMAC, ROM, KS pain, or function score at the last follow-up. No significant difference in varus and valgus laxity assessment, mechanical alignment of the lower limb, or perioperative complications was shown between the two groups. In gait analysis, no significant difference in kinematic or kinetic parameters was found except for varus angle (p < 0.05) and mediolateral ground reaction force (p < 0.05).


Results of this study show that mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods provide comparable clinical and radiological outcomes after robotic total knee arthroplasty with an average follow-up of 8 years. There were no functional difference during walking between the two alignment methods either.

Level of evidence



Mechanical alignment Kinematic alignment Total knee arthroplasty 



No specific grant was received for this research from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit-sectors.


No funding related with this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board of Chonnam National University Hospital approved this study.

Informed consent

Written informed consent for participation in the study was obtained from all patients, including permission to access patient’s records and publish individual clinical details.


  1. 1.
    Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MAR (1983) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty: correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:178–183Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB et al (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonner TJ, Eardley WG, Patterson P, Gregg PJ (2011) The effect of post-operative mechanical axis alignment on the survival of primary total knee replacements after a follow-up of 15 years. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93:1217–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorr LD, Boiardo RA (1986) Technical considerations in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:5–11Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dossett HG, Swartz GJ, Estrada NA, LeFevre GW, Kwasman BG (2012) Kinematically versus mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 35:160–169Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE (2009) Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howell SM, Howell SJ, Kuznik KT, Cohen J, Hull ML (2013) Does a kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty restore function without failure regardless of alignment category? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1000–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hungerford DS, Kenna RV, Krackow KA (1982) The porous coated anatomic total knee. Orthop Clin N Am 13:103–122Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutt J, Masse V, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA (2016) Functional joint line obliquity after kinematic total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 40:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Insall JN, Binazzi R, Soudry M, Mestriner LA (1985) Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 192:13–22Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Insall J. Tria AJ, Scott WN (1979) The total condylar knee prosthesis: the first 5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 145:68–77Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Insall J, Scott WN, Ranawat CS (1979) The total condylar knee prosthesis: a report of two hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Jt Surg Am 61:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishikawa M, Kuriyama S, Ito H et al (2015) Kinematic alignment produces near-normal knee motion but increases contact stress after total knee arthroplasty: a case study on a single implant design. Knee 22:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanekasu K, Kondo M, Kadoya Y (2005) Axial radiography of the distal femur to assess rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orhop Relat Res 434:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee JH, Seol YJ, Jung ST (2012) Utility of gait analysis and functional assessment of prosthetic reconstruction in bone tumor around the knee. J Korean Bone Jt Tumor Soc 18:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magnussen RA, Weppe F, Demey G, Servien E, Lustig S (2011) Residual varus alignment dose not compromise results of TKAs in patients with preoperative varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3443–3450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsumoto T, Takayama K, Ishida K et al (2017) Radiological and clinical comparison of kinematically versus mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 99:640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreland JR (1988) Mechanisms of failure of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:49–64Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ (2010) Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:2143–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB et al (2011) The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93:1588–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schutte LM, Narayanan U, Stout JL, Selber P, Gage JR, Schwartz MH (2000) An index for quantifying deviations from normal gait. Gait Posture 11:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slevin O, Amsler F, Hirschmann MT (2016) No correlation between coronal alignment of total knee arthroplasty and clinical outcomes: a prospective clinical study using 3D-CT. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stahelin T, Kessler O, Pfirrmann C, Jacob HA, Romero J (2003) Fluoroscopically assisted stress radiography for varus–valgus stability assessment in flexion after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18:513–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tew M, Waugh W (1985) Tibiofemoral alignment and the rsults of knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 67:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yim JH, Song EK, Khan MS, Sun ZH, Seon JK (2013) A comparison of classical and anatomical total knee alignment methods in robotic total knee arthroplasty: classical and anatomical knee alignment methods in TKA. J Arthroplast 28:932–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Je-Hyoung Yeo
    • 1
  • Jong-Keun Seon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dong-Hyun Lee
    • 1
  • Eun-Kyoo Song
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Joint DiseaseChonnam National University Bitgoeul HospitalGwangjuSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations