BACKGROUND: One major goal of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to achieve balanced medial and lateral gaps in flexion and extension. While bone resections are planned by the surgeon, soft tissue laxity is largely intrinsic and patient-specific in the absence of additional soft tissue releases. We sought to determine the variability in soft tissue laxity in patients undergoing TKA.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 113 patients undergoing TKA. Data on preoperative knee deformity were collected. Data from a dynamic intraoperative stress examination were collected by a robotic tracking system to quantify maximal medial and lateral opening in flexion (85-95 degrees) and extension (-5-20 degrees). T-tests were used to assess the differences between continuous variables.
RESULTS: A valgus stress opened the medial compartment a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 mm (0.0-12.4 mm) in extension and 4.6 ± 2.3 mm (0.0-12.9 mm) in flexion. A varus stress opened the lateral compartment a mean of 5.4 ± 2.4 mm (0.3-12.6 mm) in extension and 6.2 ± 2.5 mm (0.0-13.4 mm) in flexion. The medial compartment of varus knees opened significantly more in response to valgus stress than valgus knees in both extension (5.2 mm vs. 2.6 mm; P < 0.0001) and flexion (5.4 mm vs 3.3 mm; P < 0.0001). The lateral compartment of valgus knees opened significantly more in response to varus stress than varus knees in both extension (6.7 mm vs. 4.8 mm; P < 0.0001) and flexion (7.4 mm vs. 5.8 mm; P = 0.0003).
CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue laxity is highly variable in patients undergoing TKA, contributing anywhere from 0-13 mm to the post-resection gap. Only a small part of this variability is predictable by preoperative deformity. These findings have implications for either measured-resection or gap-balancing techniques.
METHODS: Level III.

This study aimed to compare the effect of an image-based (MAKO) system using a gap-balancing technique with an imageless (OMNIbot) robotic tool utilising a femur-first measured resection technique.
A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing primary TKA with a functional alignment philosophy performed by a single surgeon using either the MAKO or OMNIbot robotic systems. In all cases, the surgeon\'s goal was to create a balanced knee and correct sagittal deformity (eliminate any fixed flexion deformity). Intra-operative data and patient-reported outcomes (PROMS) were compared.
A total of 207 MAKO TKA and 298 OMNIbot TKAs were analysed. MAKO TKA patients were younger (67 vs 69, p=0.002) than OMNIbot patients. There were no other demographic or pre-operative alignment differences. Regarding implant positioning, in MAKO TKAs the femoral component was more externally rotated in relation to the posterior condylar axis (2.3° vs 0.1°, p<0.001), had less valgus femoral cuts (1.6° vs 2.7° valgus, p<0.001) and more varus tibial cuts (2.4° vs 1.9° varus, p<0.001), and had more bone resected compared to OMNIbot TKAs. OMNIbot cases were more likely to require tibial re-cuts than MAKO (15% vs 2%, p<0.001). There were no differences in femur recut rates, soft tissue releases, or rate of achieving target coronal and sagittal leg alignment between robotic systems. A subgroup analysis of 100 MAKO and 100 OMNIbot propensity-matched TKAs with 12-month follow-up showed no significant difference in OKS (42 vs 43, p=0.7) or OKS PASS scores (83% vs 91%, p=0.1). MAKO TKAs reported significantly better symptoms according to their KOOS symptoms score than patients that had OMNIbot TKAs (87 vs 82, p=0.02) with a higher proportion of KOOS PASS rates, at a slightly longer follow-up time (20 months vs 14 months, p<0.001). There were no other differences in PROMS.
A gap-balanced technique with an image-based robotic system (MAKO) results in different implant positioning and bone resection and reduces tibial recuts compared to a femur-first measured resection technique with an imageless robotic system (OMNIbot). Both systems achieve equal coronal and sagittal deformity correction and good patient outcomes at short-term follow-ups irrespective of these differences.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to compare outcomes of a newer technique of pie-crusting of the femoral origin of medial collateral ligament (MCL) with the conventional medial release, for correcting varus deformity during total knee arthroplasty. Null hypothesis was that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between these two techniques.
METHODS: All patients requiring an additional medial release after excision of osteophytes and release of deep MCL during total knee arthroplasty were allocated into two groups, alternately. Each group composed of 40 patients. Pie-crusting with a needle was done near the femoral attachment of superficial MCL in group-1, whereas the group-2 underwent classic sub-periosteal release of the tibial insertion of superficial MCL. All the patients were assessed for any laxity (more than 3 mm opening) intraoperatively or at one-year follow-up, pain score at 12 and 24 h after the surgery, Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and range of motion 12 months after the surgery.
RESULTS: None of the patients showed any signs of laxity or failure at one-year follow-up. Pain scores were slightly better (not statistically significant) in the group-1. However, no differences were noted in functional outcomes scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Pie-crusting of superficial MCL is a safe, controlled and less invasive approach for medial soft tissue release. When knee deformity is not correctable with initial soft tissue release, this is an appropriate next surgical step. There does not appear to be a risk of over-release during the surgery or afterward.
METHODS: Non-randomized controlled trial, Level II.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a high incidence of complications with a bi-cruciate stabilized (BCS) guided-motion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design, which led to recent modifications of the design by the manufacturer.
OBJECTIVE: The current study was undertaken to assess whether the use of this TKA system with an extension-first surgical technique is associated with a similar rate of short-term adverse outcome as reported in literature.
METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 257 consecutive patients (257 knees) undergoing TKA for osteoarthritis of the knee, with the first 153 receiving cemented Journey BCS I implants and the remaining 104 receiving cemented Journey BCS II implants when these became available.
RESULTS: Mean follow-up time for the cohort was 24.5 ± 7.8 months (range, 12 - 36 months). There were no cases of stiffness. Incidence of iliotibial friction syndrome was considered low: three (2.0%) knees in the BCS I group and two (1.9%) in the BCS II group (p = 0.676). Five (2.5%) knees presented with mild instability in midflexion, three (2.0%) in the BCS I group and two (1.9%) in the BCS II group (p = 0.676). One patient with a BCS I implant required reoperation for aseptic loosening 23 months postoperatively. At one-year follow-up, there were no clinically relevant differences in any of the clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: When used in combination with an extension-first surgical technique, good early functional results with an acceptable rate of complications were obtained with both the original and the updated Journey BCS knee implant.

Balancing techniques in total knee arthroplasty are often based on surgeons\' subjective judgment. However, newer technologies have allowed for objective measurements of soft tissue balancing. This study compared the use of sensor technology to the 30-year surgeon experience regarding (1) compartment loads, (2) soft tissue releases, and (3) component rotational alignments.
Patients received either sensor-guided soft tissue balancing (n = 10) or manual gap balancing (n = 12). Wireless, intraoperative sensor tibial inserts were used to measure intracompartmental loads. The surgeon was blinded to values in the manual gap-balancing cohort. In the sensor cohort, the surgeon was unblinded, and implant trials were placed after normal releases were performed to guide further ligament releases after femoral and tibial resections, as needed. Load measurements were taken at 10°, 45°, and 90°.
The sensor cohort had lower medial and lateral compartment loading at 10°, 45°, and 90°. The sensor group had lower mean differences in intercompartment loading at 10° (-5.6 vs -51.7 lbs), 45° (-9.8 vs -45.9 lbs), and 90° (-4.3 vs -27 lbs) compared to manually balanced patients. There were 10 additional soft tissue releases in the sensor cohort (2 initial ones before sensor use), compared to 2 releases in the gap-balanced cohort. In the gap-balanced cohort, tibial trays were positioned at a mean 9° external rotation, compared to a mean 1° internal rotation in the sensor-guided cohort.
Sensor-balanced total knee arthroplasties provide objective feedback to perform releases and potentially improve knee balancing and rotational alignment. Future work may clarify whether these changes are beneficial for our patients.

BACKGROUND: Combining patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) with a balancer device in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to achieve functional femoral rotational alignment is a novel technique. The primary goal of this study was to introduce a new method to combine PSI with a gap-balancing technique and to determine the impact of the technique on rotation of the femoral component.
METHODS: Twenty-five primary TKAs (15 women, 10 men) were prospectively studied. All TKAs involved PSI with an associated gap-balancing device. Front plane alignment was performed intraoperatively with the PSI, followed by rectangular, symmetrical extension and creation of a flexion gap using the balancer device to set the femoral rotation.
RESULTS: Femoral component rotation was between 3° internal and 6° external rotation versus the transepicondylar axis. There were no postoperative signs of patellofemoral dysfunction. In no cases was the resulting joint line displacement >3 mm. The mean elevation was 1.2 ± 0.9 mm (range 0-3). The leg axis was straight in all cases (±3°), at a mean of 1.6° ± 1.0° varus (range 0°-3° varus).
CONCLUSIONS: PSI was with the gap-balancing technique was successfully used without affecting anatomical alignment. With the balancer device, PSI can be used more widely than techniques based solely on landmarks, as the soft-tissue tension can be taken into account, thus virtually eliminating flexion instabilities.