Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 7;1(1):12–17. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000002

Table II.

Summary of studies challenging the aim of neutral alignment

Author Year Number Prosthesis Follow-up (yrs) Outcome measures Findings Comments
Morgan20 2007 197 Kinemax 9 Radiographic alignment, revision or intention to revise No difference in revision rate for neutral (4° to 9° anatomical valgus), varus or valgus alignment Retrospective study
Parratte21 2010 398 Kinematic Condylar II 15 Radiographic alignment, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis No difference in revision rate for mechanical axis 0° ± 3° compared with outliers Retrospective study
PFC
Genesis
Bonner22 2011 501 PFC 15 (min 9) Radiographic alignment, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis Weak trend towards improved survivorship in aligned group (mechanical axis 0° ± 3°) (p = 0.47) Retrospective study
Matziolis23 2010 218 PFC Sigma 5 to 10 Radiographic alignment, KSS, WOMAC, SF-36 No difference in revision rate or any outcome measure Case control study comparing 30 most varus TKA to neutrally aligned, matched controls
Natural Knee II
Magnussen24 2011 553 HLS I 2 to 19 Radiographic alignment, revision rate, KSS No difference in revision rate or IKS for neutral or residual varus > 3°/Lower IKS scores with tibial component varus Compared patients with pre-operative varus alignment based on neutral or varus post-operative alignment
HLS II
HLS Evolution
Noetos HLS
Vanlommel25 2013 143 Profix 7.2 Radiographic alignment, KSS, WOMAC Total KSS and function subscore, total WOMAC, stiffness and ADL subscores better in mild varus group (3-6° mechanical varus) compared to neutral and >6° varus groups Compared patients with pre-operative varus alignment based on degree of post-operative varus

Notes: KSS, Knee Society Score; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index; IKS, International Knee Society Score; SF-36, Short Form-36; ADL, activities of daily living.