Clinical trial NCT06787417: Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment Randomized Trial
Official title: Kinematic and Mechanical Alignment Randomized Trial (KMART): A Technology-Focused Randomized Controlled Trial
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: RECRUITING
Phase: PHASE4
Conditions: Total Knee Arthroplasty
Osteoarthritis
Keywords: Total Knee Arthroplasty
Kinematic Alignment
Mechanical Alignment
Osteoarthritis
Lead sponsor: McMaster University
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Research Institute of St. Joseph's Hamilton
name: Canadian Orthopaedic Foundation (funding)
First posted: 2025-01-22
Enrollment: 260
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: Knee replacement surgery is the second most common surgery in Canada. People who have very painful knee arthritis usually receive a knee replacement where the surgeon aims to make everyone's knee as straight as possible (called mechanical alignment). Mechanical alignment focuses on making the implant last as long as possible. However, everybody's knee shape is different and we think that it is important to take individual differences into account. A newer technique that is more personalized is called restricted kinematic alignment. This technique customizes the placement of the new knee to reproduce each patient's unique knee shape, which may not be perfectly straight. We think this newer technique may feel more natural, be more stable, and lead to better knee function. Restricted kinematic alignment might last as long or longer than mechanical alignment, but the research that has been conducted to date is not clear. We are conducting this study to help surgeons better understand which technique is better. One of the reasons the existing research is not clear is because new developments in robotic technology now allow surgeons to place knee implants very precisely, which was not done in most previous research. In this study everyone will receive a robot-assisted knee surgery so we can be sure the implants are placed as precisely as possible.

The purpose of this trial is to determine whether there are differences in patient outcomes using restricted kinematic alignment rather than the traditionally used mechanical alignment for total knee replacements.

Participants who are having total knee replacements will be randomized to receive either a robot-assisted total knee replacement using mechanical alignment, or a robot-assisted total knee replacement using restricted kinematic alignment . We will ask participants to walk in a markerless motion capture system which will measure walking characteristics at pre-op, 6 months postop and 12 months postop. Participants will also complete a series of standardized questionnaires at preop and 6 months, 12 months, and 24 month postop.

Detailed description: Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is recognized as a highly effective procedure for alleviating pain and restoring function in patients with knee arthritis. Despite its high success rate, approximately 20% of patients remain dissatisfied with the outcomes, primarily due to loss of functional outcomes, persistent pain, and reduced knee range of motion. This has sparked a debate on the optimal surgical alignment technique in TKA-whether mechanical alignment (MA), or personalized alignment philosophies such as kinematic alignment (KA) or restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) provides superior patient outcomes.

MA traditionally targets a neutral 180-degree hip-knee-ankle (HKA) axis, as it was taught traditionally that this approach focuses on the longevity and stability of the implant. However, this one-size-fits-all philosophy overlooks individual anatomical differences. Personalized alignments such as KA customize the placement of prosthetic components to replicate each patient's unique knee geometry and ligament tensions. Personalized alignment philosophies aim to achieve a more natural knee motion, which may enhance patient satisfaction. The precision provided by robotic-assisted surgery has increasingly facilitated the implementation of personalized alignment philosophies in TKA. Recent evidence suggests that while MA and KA yield comparable outcomes in terms of knee functionality and motion, KA may improve satisfaction and the natural feel of the knee in certain groups, particularly those without severe preoperative deformities. There is also the emerging approach of restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) which aims to provide a compromise by aligning the prosthesis within safe anatomical limits, thus avoiding the extremes of anatomical variation. This approach tailors the surgery more closely to the individual's anatomy without the risks associated with the broader variances permitted in pure KA. Hypothetically, KA and rKA techniques should more closely replicate natural knee biomechanics and improve waking gait. There are advantages and disadvantages to these alignment philosophies which should be addressed with high-quality research. While there have been several previous randomized trials on MA vs KA and its variations, the evidence is still unclear with meta-analyses having conflicting findings.

Patients will be randomly assigned to either mechanical alignment or restricted kinematic alignment. All participants will receive robot-assisted TKA using the Stryker Mako surgical robot and Stryker implants. Perioperative care, postoperative pain medications, and rehabilitation will be standardized according to local standard care.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Adult aged 18 years or older
* Knee osteoarthritis requiring total knee arthroplasty
* Provide informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

* Inability to provide informed consent (e.g. cognitive disability, language barrier)
* Revision knee surgery
* Simultaneous bilateral knee surgery
* Recent lower extremity surgery or trauma interfering with gait assessment
* A CT scan cannot be obtained prior to surgery
* Inability or unwillingness to comply with the study protocol

Primary outcomes:
measure: Gait Biomechanics
timeFrame: 12 months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Knee function
timeFrame: 24 months
measure: Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP)
timeFrame: 24 months
measure: Quality of life
timeFrame: 24 months
measure: Return to Function
timeFrame: 24 months
Other outcomes:
measure: Safety
timeFrame: 24 months
Locations:
city: Hamilton
country: Canada
facility: St. Joseph's Healthcare
state: Ontario
Study officials:
References: