Kinematic Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty of Varus Knees Minimises Distal Ankle Compensatory Changes Compared with Mechanical Alignment

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Alignment philosophy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may affect joints beyond the knee. Mechanical alignment (MA) targets a neutral mechanical axis, whereas kinematic alignment (KA) aims to restore native alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). This study compares the effects of MA and KA on hip and ankle radiographic parameters and investigates the propagation of coronal correction along the lower limb. Methods: A retrospective comparative study evaluated 63 TKAs performed for varus deformity (KA: n = 32; MA: n = 31). Pre- and postoperative full-length standing radiographs were used to calculate changes (Delta), defined as the difference between postoperative and preoperative values, in hip offsets, mechanical and arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angles (mHKA, aHKA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), JLO, and ankle ground-referenced angles. Between-group differences and correlations were analysed. Interobserver reliability was assessed for all variables. Results: MA produced significantly greater limb correction than KA (Delta mHKA: 8.89 degrees vs. 4.82 degrees, p < 0.001), primarily due to increased tibial valgus correction (Delta MPTA: 6.26 degrees vs. 2.41 degrees, p < 0.001). JLO increased substantially with MA (+4.10 degrees) but was preserved with KA (+0.30 degrees, p < 0.001). MA resulted in significant valgus shifts at the ankle (ground talar dome angle (GTDA) -3.01 degrees, ground tibial plafond angle (GTPA) -3.02 degrees; p = 0.006 for both), whereas KA produced no significant ankle changes. Correlation analysis demonstrated limited knee-ankle biomechanical coupling, with a moderate negative correlation in MA (Delta mHKA vs. Delta GTDA: rho = -0.479, p = 0.006) and a weak correlation in KA (Delta aHKA vs. Delta GTDA: rho = -0.360, p = 0.043). Hip parameters remained unchanged in both groups. Conclusions: Mechanical alignment induces larger tibial-driven coronal corrections, increases joint line obliquity, and produces measurable valgus shift at the ankle. In contrast, kinematic alignment preserves native alignment and joint-line obliquity while minimising distal ankle compensatory changes.