Definition of normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal knee alignment for total knee arthroplasty

Abstract Purpose One of the most pertinent questions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is: what could be considered normal coronal alignment? This study aims to define normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal alignment using large data from a computed tomography (CT)‐scan database and previously published phenotypes. Methods Coronal alignment parameters from 11,191 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients were measured based on three dimensional reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software. Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of the overall hip knee ankle angle (HKA), femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA). Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ±1.5° from this mean. Coronal alignment is classified as normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant based on distribution frequency. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients in this study and non‐OA patients from a previously published study). Results The arithmetic HKA (aHKA), combined normalised data of FMA and TMA, showed that 36.0% of knees were neutral within ±1 SD from the mean in both angles, 44.3% had either a TMA or a FMA within ±1–2 SD (normally aligned), 15.3% of the patients were deviant within ±2–3 SD and only 4.4% of them had an aberrant alignment (±3–4 SD in 3.4% and >4 SD in 1.0% of the patients respectively). However, combining the normalised data of HKA, FMA and TMA, 15.4% of patients were neutral in all three angles, 39.7% were at least normal, 27.7% had at least one deviant angle and 17.2% had at least one aberrant angle. For HKA, the males exhibited 1° varus and females were neutral. For FMA, the females exhibited 0.7° more valgus in mean than males and grew 1.8° per category (males grew 2.1° per category). For TMA, the males exhibited 1.3° more varus than females and both grew 2.3° and 2.4° (females) per category. Normal coronal alignment was 179.2° ± 2.8–5.6° (males) and 180.5 > ± 2.8–5.6° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 2.1–4.2° (males) and 93.8 > ± 1.8–3.6° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 2.3–4.6° (males) and 88 > ± 2.4–4.8° (females) for TMA. This means HKA 6.4 varus or 4.8° valgus (males) or 5.1° varus to 6.1° valgus was considered normal. For FMA HKA 1.1 varus or 7.3° valgus (males) or 0.2° valgus to 7.4° valgus was considered normal. For TMA HKA 7.9 varus or 1.3° valgus (males) or 6.8° varus to 2.8° valgus was considered normal. Aberrant coronal alignment started from 179.2° ± 8.4° (males) and 180.5 > ± 8.4° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 6.3° (males) 93.8 > ± 5.4° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 6.9° (males) and 88 > ± 7.2° (females) for TMA. This means HKA > 9.2° varus or 7.6° valgus (males) or 7.9° varus to 8.9° valgus was considered aberrant. Conclusion Definitions of neutrality, normality, deviance as well as aberrance for coronal alignment in TKA were proposed in this study according to their distribution frequencies. This can be seen as an important first step towards a safe transition from the conventional one‐size‐fits‐all to a more personalised coronal alignment target. There should be further definitions combining bony alignment, joint surfaces' morphology, soft tissue laxities and joint kinematics. Level of Evidence III.