Superiority of kinematic alignment over mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty during medium- to long-term follow-up: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Purpose: To compare and determine the reliability and conclusiveness of the medium- and long-term efficacy in terms of patient-reported outcome measures and the risk of revisions or reoperations (RRRs) of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database Library to identify relevant literature. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published before July 2023 were included. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and RRR were compared. Additionally, OKS and RRR were subjected to a trial sequential analysis.

Results: Seven RCTs involving 572 knees were identified. The pooled analysis of the included studies demonstrated that KA showed better medium-term WOMAC and OKS (mean difference [MD] = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.52 to -2.99, p < 0.05 and MD = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.05-2.15, p < 0.05), respectively), but no significant differences were observed in the long-term follow-up (MD = 2.1, 95% CI: -3.21 to 7.31, not significant [n.s.] and MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -2.43 to 2.46, n.s., respectively). FJS (standardised MD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.19, n.s.) and RRR (risk ratio = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.74, n.s.) showed no significant intergroup differences (n.s.). The evidence quality ranged from moderate to high, and the trial sequential analysis indicated the need for additional high-quality RCTs to draw more conclusive results.

Conclusions: KA showed better medium-term WOMAC and OKS, while KA and MA had similar FJS without increasing the RRR in medium- and long-term follow-up. Further research is needed for more conclusive results.

Level of evidence: Level II (meta-analyses).