Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026

Individualized Stem-positioning in Calcar-guided Short-stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Published on: February 27, 2018
Comparison of functional and mechanical alignment in robotic- and computer-assisted posterior-stabilized total knee
Pierre-Alban Bouché1, Halah Kutaish2, Toscan Donat2
1Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Trauma Care, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland; University of Paris Cite, Faculty of Medecine, 15 rue de l'école de Médecine, 75006 Paris, France.
Introduction:
While mechanical alignment (MA) has long been the gold standard in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), functional alignment (FA) has recently emerged as a promising alternative, particularly with the advent of robotic-assisted techniques. Despite its growing adoption in clinical practice, comparative evidence between functional and mechanical alignment remains limited, especially for postero-stabilized (PS) TKA. The present study means to compare mechanical and functional alignment in TKA in terms of patient-reported and functional outcomes at a minimum of one year follow-up.
Hypothesis:
Functional alignment would result in superior functional outcomes compared to mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty, without compromising perioperative safety.
Methods:
This single-center, retrospective cohort study included 172 patients undergoing primary TKA performed by the same surgeon between 2016 and 2024. Following a 1:1 propensity score matching, patients receiving MA-TKA with navigation (n = 86) were compared with those receiving FA-TKA with robotic assistance (n = 86). The primary outcome was the rate of persistent pain (VAS ≥ 4/10) at six months. Secondary outcomes included validated patient-reported outcomes (PROs), operative time, hospital stay, and complications.
Results:
At six months, the prevalence of persistent pain was comparable between groups (MA: 15.1%, FA: 19.8%; p = 0.55). At one-year, PROs were similar across all metrics (p > 0.05), although the FA group consistently demonstrated numerically superior scores. Two isolated WOMAC items (pain and difficulty walking on a flat surface; both p = 0.02) favored the FA group. Operative time (101.7 ± 16.7 vs 119.6 ± 16.0 min; p < 0.01) and hospital stay (7.7 ± 2.0 vs 9.2 ± 3.8 days; p < 0.01) were significantly shorter in the FA group. Complication and revision rates were low and not significantly different between groups. As the two cohorts also differed in surgical technology and treatment era, these perioperative findings should be interpreted as exploratory and not necessarily attributable to alignment strategy alone.
Conclusion:
Functional alignment in robotic-assisted TKA resulted in pain and functional outcomes comparable to mechanical alignment with computer navigation, without demonstrating clinical superiority. Perioperative differences (operative time and hospital stay) were observed but may reflect differences in technology and treatment era rather than alignment strategy alone. These findings support the safety of functional alignment as an individualized alternative to mechanical alignment in contemporary TKA.
Level Of Evidence:
III; comparative retrospective investigation.
More Related Videos
09:51The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
07:33In Vitro Application of a Wireless Sensor in Flexion-Extension Gap Balance of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Published on: May 5, 2023