Introduction

Recently, the alignment philosophy underpinning the study of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has tended to shift from mechanically aligned TKA as the gold standard to personalized alignment instead [10]. Hirschmann et al. created a new classification for functional knee phenotypes using a coronal lower limb alignment based on the native alignment in young individuals without osteoarthritis (OA) [12]. Based on 125 possible functional knee phenotypes, they indicated the eight most common functional phenotypes which covered two-thirds of the total population and represented which phenotypes were suitable for mechanical, anatomical, and restricted kinematic alignment. The group also confirmed the great variability of joint line orientation in osteoarthritic and non-osteoarthritic knees by assessing the femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA), indicating the necessity of a more individualized approach in TKA [9, 11]. More recently, MacDessi et al. introduced the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification system which classified knee phenotypes based on constitutional limb alignment and joint line obliquity [21]. The classification system also indicated that the kinematic approach was suitable for Type I (varus, apex distal joint line) and type IV (varus, neutral joint line) out of nine classification categories. Anatomical and restricted kinematically aligned (KA)-TKA [14, 16] have gained popularity for reproducing physiological joint lines and kinematics with minimal soft tissue release, and achieve better clinical outcomes than mechanically aligned TKA. However, recent meta-analyses have shown that the advantage of KA-TKA is still controversial compared with mechanically aligned TKA; one showed better early clinical outcomes and another did not [4, 12] and MacDessi’s [21] classifications for ground KA-TKA should be investigated by widening the patient population. The radiological two-dimensional simulation of the surgery was another limitation of this study. The influence of limb rotational position on parameter changes should be validated by three-dimensional analysis. Most importantly, the clinical outcomes were not assessed. Reduced alignment outliers in ground KA-TKA may lead to good clinical outcomes without any catastrophic failures; however, its clinical relevance should be investigated further in the future.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the ground KA-TKA technique with radiological preoperative planning was easily feasible for mild-to-moderate varus OA patients. This new KA-TKA procedure, as a personalized alignment technique, may provide greater physiological alignment which is more comparable to the native knee than other alignment techniques in TKA.