Evidence Hub

The John N. Insall Award: Functional versus Mechanical Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial

S. Young, Mei L. Tay, Kohei Kawaguchi, R. van Rooyen, Matthew L. Walker, William J. Farrington, A. Bayan

Journal of Arthroplasty, 2025

123 participants · 62 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Mechanically aligned (MA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is regarded as a gold standard; however, some patients report dissatisfaction post-surgery. Functional alignment (FA) is a potential alternative, integrating kinematic alignment (KA) principles with pre-resection bone balancing within defined boundaries. The use of FA aims to improve outcomes by restoring native joint lines and optimizing soft-tissue balance. However, comparative evidence is limited.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared MA (n = 121) and FA (n = 123) in robotic-assisted TKA. For MA, components were positioned perpendicular to the limb mechanical axis, with soft-tissue releases to achieve balance. For FA, initial virtual component positioning was used to match native knee anatomy (KA), with adjustments for soft-tissue balance before bone cuts. The primary outcome was the forgotten joint score (FJS). Outcomes were compared with a mixed-model analysis of variance.

RESULTS

At the two-year follow-up, the mean FJS was comparable (MA: 64.4 ± 30.1 versus FA: 70.1 ± 25.6, P = 0.10). The MA cases had more soft-tissue releases than FA (65 versus 16%, P < 0.001). Compared to MA patients, FA patients had higher Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) Symptoms (86.6 ± 12.9 versus 82.5 ± 14.0, P = 0.01) and KOOS-Quality of Life (QOL) scores (76.1 ± 20.3 versus 70.7 ± 22.7, P = 0.03). More FA patients 'would recommend' the procedure (94 versus 82%, P < 0.01). For patients who…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 123 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free