ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT06486714Updated Aug 27, 2026

Mechanical Alignment Versus Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty

An interventional study of Total knee arthroplasty in Knee Osteoarthritis, sponsored by Loyola University. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-27.

Sponsored by Loyola University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
96
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Historically, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been performed with the goal of restoring a neutral mechanical axis, eliminating the average 3 degrees of valgus and varus of the distal femur and proximal tibia joint lines respectively. This is thought to provide a more stable and neutral joint-bearing surface. Because of this shift to a 0-degree knee angle, soft tissue releases are frequently required to balance the knee after making the distal tibia and proximal tibia cuts. More recently and increasingly, TKAs have been performed with a goal of restoring kinematic, or anatomic, alignment of the knee. This is thought to provide a more normal native knee angle, with the hopes of precluding the necessity of soft tissue releases to balance the knee. While some studies are promising regarding kinematically aligned TKAs (KA-TKA), at present, it is unclear how these compare to mechanically aligned TKAs (MA-TKA) in terms of patient reported outcome measures (PROM) when compared head-to-head.

This study will randomize patients to receive either cemented MA-TKA or KA-TKA with the goal of assessing pain scores and PROMs at various time points following surgery.

Read the detailed description

Participants include patients 18 years or older presenting to the the investigators' institutions indicated for a primary total knee arthroplasty. Exclusion criteria include revision TKA, patients with prior injuries to study knee, patients with history of childhood knee disease, patients who cannot complete questionnaires in English, patients with comorbidities preventing surgery, and patients who are not able to provide informed consent.

If, after examination, the patient is still eligible, the surgeon will introduce the study. If the patient is receptive, a member of the study team will approach the prospective patient to explain the study in detail. The study team members will emphasize the voluntary nature of participation and the prospective participant will be encouraged to ask questions and speak to others about participation. Once questions are answered to the prospective participant's satisfaction, they will be presented with the informed consent document (ICD). The study team member will exit the exam room to allow the prospective participant to carefully read the consent form. If they wish, prospective participants will be provided with a paper copy of the ICD to read and discuss with whomever they wish. Once the study team member and surgeon, if required, have answered any additional questions, the participant will sign the ICD. Preferably, the ICD will be signed in clinic. If a prospective participant has taken then ICD with them to consider or discuss with others, a study team member will plan a time to meet the prospective participant in the Orthopaedic Surgery clinic (likely in the preoperative holding area) to sign the ICD and complete the baseline questionnaires and ROM. Patients will have up until the day of surgery to decide if they would like to participate in the study.

Informed consent will be obtained from participants before surgery. Preferably, the ICD will be signed in clinic. If a prospective participant has taken then ICD with them to consider or discuss with others, a study team member will plan a time to meet the prospective participant in the Orthopaedic Surgery clinic (likely when they return for preoperative clearance) to sign the ICD and complete the baseline questionnaires and ROM. Shortly after the ICD is signed, the participant will be randomized to either receive MA-TKA or KA-TKA. The participant will be blinded to the assignment until one year after surgery. The study team and surgeon will not be blinded to the assignment. Randomization will occur using stratified randomization lists per site. The Biostatistics Core at the Loyola University Clinical Research Office will provide randomization lists for each site to ensure equal 1:1 allocation of the two methods within each institution. Loyola Biostatistics will ensure randomization lists are readily available via REDCap at the time of consent/randomization. A member of the study team will communicate the randomization assignment to the surgeon and/or surgery scheduler. Preoperative instruction, surgery, and postoperative care/instructions will be the same for study participants as for patients who are not participating in the study. Two weeks after surgery, participants will return to the clinic for standard of care postoperative examination. The participant will be asked to complete questionnaires using a Loyola-managed electronic device. If desired, the participant can also request that a link to the questionnaires be emailed ahead of their appointment to be completed on their own device. Participants will also be asked to complete the same questionnaires prior to or at their standard 6-week postoperative visit and at the standard of care 1-year postoperative visit.

All patients indicated for primary total knee arthroplasty will receive a cruciate-retaining cemented or cementless implant system, utilizing either MA or KA methodology. Both TKA types have been proven successful clinically and in the literature. A placebo would not be appropriate or ethical. Participants will be blinded to the assignment until one year after surgery. The study team and surgeon will not be blinded to the assignment.

The primary aim of the study will be measured by the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference item banks, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Jr., the Forgotten Joint Score, and a validated 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS) of patient pain. KOOS Jr scores at 6 weeks post operation will be considered the primary endpoint. Secondary aims include evaluating KOOS Jr at 2 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. In addition to KOOS Jr, postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, self-reported outcomes, range of motion, and survivorship will be collected at all time points.

A 10-point difference in KOOS score is deemed clinically relevant between KA-TKA and MA-TKA methods. Using previously published data, KOOS has a conservative standard deviation estimate of 18. Using an independent sample t-test with 80% power and a 2-sided alpha value of 0.05, a sample size of 48 independent patients per method is sufficient to test the null hypothesis of no difference in KOOS, with an alternative hypothesis of +/- 10 points difference. With possible attrition of 5%, this sample size is inflated to 51 per group.

The investigators' hypothesis is that patients with KA-TKAs will have higher PROMs compared to patients who receive MA-TKAs.

MA-TKAs and KA-TKAs are commonly used procedures. Both procedures will be performed in a standard of care manner. There is no additional surgery risk to participants when participating in this study. Subject safety will be monitored like any other patient receiving a total knee arthroplasty by post-operative visits, patient-reported outcome measures, radiographic studies, and access to a contact number should patients have questions/concerns. Patients may experience a loss of confidentiality because of study participation. The frequency of this risk is rare. We do not expect any increased failure rate in either group as many studies have shown both techniques to be safe and efficacious. However, if there is a dramatic difference in failure rate our outcomes, we will halt the study.

02

Conditions studied

  • Knee Osteoarthritis
03

In context

Osteoarthritis, Knee

3,292 studies on the registry are indexed under Osteoarthritis, Knee; 623 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 96 is above the median of 68 across 2,714 interventional studies indexed under Osteoarthritis, Knee.

Browse Osteoarthritis, Knee studies →

Lead sponsor

Loyola University is the lead sponsor of 134 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.

Of its 26 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 23 (88%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients 18 years or older presenting to our institutions indicated for a primary total knee arthroplasty

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Revision TKA
  • Patients with prior injuries to study knee
  • Patients with history of childhood knee disease
  • Patients who cannot complete questionnaires in English
  • Patients with comorbidities preventing surgery
  • Patients who are not able to provide
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
96 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Kinematic Total Knee Arthroplasty

    KA-TKAs recreate the native joint line, hip-knee-ankle angle, and rotation of the pre-arthritic joint.

    Procedure: Total knee arthroplasty

  • Active comparator
    Mechanical Total Knee Arthroplasty

    MA-TKAs are performed by which the distal femur and proximal tibia cuts are made perpendicular to the mechanical axis, a line connecting the center of the femoral head to the center of the ankle. These cuts are classically described as a 6-degree valgus cut of the distal femur and a 0-degree cut of the proximal tibia in relation to the mechanical axis. MA-TKAs create a 0-degree hip-knee-ankle angle.

    Procedure: Total knee arthroplasty

Interventions

  • ProcedureTotal knee arthroplasty

    All patients indicated for primary total knee arthroplasty will receive a cruciate-retaining cemented or cementless implant system, utilizing either MA or KA methodology.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Jr Score

    The KOOS Jr Score is a patient-reported outcome measure, scaled from 0-28, with higher scores meaning worse outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks post op, 6 weeks post op, 1 week post op

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function

    The PROMIS Physical Function Score is a patient-reported outcome measure, scaled from 0-20, with higher scores meaning improved outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks post op, 6 weeks post op, 1 week post op

Other outcomes

  1. Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference

    The PROMIS Pain Interference Score is a patient-reported outcome measure, scaled from 0-20, with higher scores meaning worse pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks post op, 6 weeks post op, 1 week post op

  2. Forgotten Joint Score

    The Forgotten Joint Score is a patient-reported outcome measure, scaled from 0-100, with higher scores meaning improved outcomes.

    Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks post op, 6 weeks post op, 1 week post op

  3. Pain Visual Analogue Scale

    Pain scale scaled from 0-10 with higher scores indicating more pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks post op, 6 weeks post op, 1 week post op

  4. Range of motion

    Range of motion defined as degrees of knee extension and flexion

    Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks post op, 6 weeks post op, 1 week post op

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Blakeney W, Clement J, Desmeules F, Hagemeister N, Riviere C, Vendittoli PA. Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty better reproduces normal gait than mechanical alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 May;27(5):1410-1417. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5174-1. Epub 2018 Oct 1. PubMed 30276435 ↗
  • Elbuluk AM, Jerabek SA, Suhardi VJ, Sculco PK, Ast MP, Vigdorchik JM. Head-to-Head Comparison of Kinematic Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment for Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022 Aug;37(8S):S849-S851. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.052. Epub 2022 Jan 31. PubMed 35093548 ↗
  • Jaffe WL, Dundon JM, Camus T. Alignment and Balance Methods in Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Oct 15;26(20):709-716. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00428. PubMed 30134305 ↗
  • Lee YS, Howell SM, Won YY, Lee OS, Lee SH, Vahedi H, Teo SH. Kinematic alignment is a possible alternative to mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Nov;25(11):3467-3479. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4558-y. Epub 2017 Apr 24. PubMed 28439636 ↗
  • Li Y, Wang S, Wang Y, Yang M. Does Kinematic Alignment Improve Short-Term Functional Outcomes after Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared with Mechanical Alignment? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Knee Surg. 2018 Jan;31(1):78-86. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1602136. Epub 2017 May 1. PubMed 28460408 ↗
  • Luceri F, Sosio C, Sirtori P, Battistella D, Zuffada M, Ulivi M, Meroni V, Marmotti A, Mangiavini L, Peretti GM. Kinematic versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Jul-Aug;34(4 Suppl. 3):139-143. Congress of the Italian Orthopaedic Research Society. PubMed 33261269 ↗
  • Luo Z, Zhou K, Peng L, Shang Q, Pei F, Zhou Z. Similar results with kinematic and mechanical alignment applied in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Jun;28(6):1720-1735. doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05584-2. Epub 2019 Jun 27. PubMed 31250055 ↗
  • McEwen PJ, Dlaska CE, Jovanovic IA, Doma K, Brandon BJ. Computer-Assisted Kinematic and Mechanical Axis Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Bilateral Simultaneous Surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):443-450. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.064. Epub 2019 Sep 5. PubMed 31591010 ↗
  • Oussedik S, Abdel MP, Victor J, Pagnano MW, Haddad FS. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2020 Mar;102-B(3):276-279. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-1729. PubMed 32114811 ↗
  • Riviere C, Iranpour F, Auvinet E, Howell S, Vendittoli PA, Cobb J, Parratte S. Alignment options for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Nov;103(7):1047-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.010. Epub 2017 Aug 31. PubMed 28864235 ↗
  • Tian G, Wang L, Liu L, Zhang Y, Zuo L, Li J. Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: An up-to-date meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2022 Sep-Dec;30(3):10225536221125952. doi: 10.1177/10225536221125952. PubMed 36250421 ↗
  • Weber P, Gollwitzer H. Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2021 Dec;33(6):525-537. doi: 10.1007/s00064-021-00729-4. Epub 2021 Aug 19. PubMed 34414467 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Start is estimated for Jan 2027; primary completion for Jun 2028, 17 months later.

Of 1,111 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Osteoarthritis, Knee, half reached primary completion within 18 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 36. This study's planned 17 months is close to that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 1,251 studies reached it within 18 months; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 36.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jun 27, 2024
First posted
Jul 3, 2024
StartEst.
Jan 1, 2027
Primary completionEst.
Jun 1, 2028
CompletionEst.
Jun 1, 2028
Last update
Aug 27, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 27, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06486714
Lead sponsor
Loyola University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 3, 2024
Start date
Jan 1, 2027 (estimated)
Primary completion
Jun 1, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 1, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 27, 2026

Study contacts

Hanna House, MD
Contact
hanna.e.house@luhs.org
2602414659
Nicholas Brown, MD
Contact
nicholas.brown002@lumc.edu
3194004327
Nicholas Brown, MD
principal investigator · Loyola University Chicago

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion