Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Jul;40(7S1):S20-S30.e2.
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.065. Epub 2025 Feb 27.

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

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Simon W Young et al. J Arthroplasty. 2025 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty is regarded as a gold standard; however, some patients report dissatisfaction postsurgery. Functional alignment (FA) is a potential alternative, integrating kinematic alignment (KA) principles with preresection 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 total knee arthroplasty. 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, 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 2-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 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 had preoperative Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Type I, FA had higher FJS (71.3 ± 24.8 versus 56.8 ± 31.6, P = 0.02) and KOOS-Quality of Life (76.4 ± 21.7 versus 64.2 ± 19.2, P = 0.02) than MA. No other differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score, KOOS, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Pain Visual Analog Scale), clinical outcomes (length of stay, functional physio tests), reoperations, or implant survivorship (FA: 1 versus MA: 0 revisions).

Conclusions: While FA required fewer soft-tissue releases compared to mechanical alignment, at 2 years patient-reported and clinical outcomes were similar. The use of FA may provide improved outcomes for a specific subgroup of patients based on their preoperative alignment.

Keywords: Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee; functional alignment; mechanical alignment; patient outcomes; robotic-assisted surgery; total knee arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources