Gap balancing versus measured resection in TKA—Evidence for/against gap balancing



When it comes achieving correct femoral component positioning during TKA, one commonly used technique is gap balancing. This method is successfully employed by many surgeons and involves balancing tension and flexion gaps before femoral bone cuts are made. Here, in part 2 of our article series, we explore gap balancing and some of the positive and negative commentary surrounding this technique. 


Some schools of thought maintain that the success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) relies - among other things - on achieving symmetric, balanced flexion and extension gaps [1]. Indeed, soft tissue management has been identified by some as more important to outcomes than bone management [2].

If femoral component malrotation is present, it can result in decreased patient satisfaction (pain) and implant disfunction [3] via altered tibiofemoral kinematics [4, 5]. Malrotation can also cause patellofemoral complications and instability. This was directly correlated to the combined (femoral and tibial) internal component rotation by Berger et al. [6] It has also been suggested that if relative rotational mismatch is kept within ±5° (surgical norms), then knee axial rotation during flexion is more controlled and more likely to deliver a better outcome [5].

Gap balancing has been shown to produce desirable outcomes, particularly because balancing is done independent of bony anatomy, eliminating confusion around intraoperative landmarking that could be compromised by bone deformities and individual anatomical variation [7, 8].

Matthew Abdel, orthopedic surgeon at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, US, finds the technique, “particularly useful for patients with distal femoral fractures where anatomic landmarks are displaced and may make a measured resection technique difficult.” Philipp von Roth, orthopedic surgeon at the Charité-University Hospital in Berlin, Germany, feels that the “gap balancing technique is optimal for redressable varus- or valgus deformities and in case of difficulties identifying the anatomical landmarks with intact ligaments.”

 

Two gap balancing techniques

While measured resection is a technique used to determine femoral component rotation, this article will examine gap balancing and its two recognized sequences, looking at the pros and cons. See our interview on why surgeons use one or the other technique.

In gap balancing, ligaments are released before femoral bone cuts are made [7]. One technique we will discuss involves balancing the flexion gap first; the other technique first balances the joint in extension, then returns to address the flexion gap in relation to the previously balanced extension gap [7]. Both require sequential soft tissue balancing [9].

Remove all osteophytes

Both techniques demand the removal of all osteophytes (including posterior femoral and tibial) before soft tissue releases. Ramappa et al. reminds surgeons about “the importance of meticulous osteophyte excision” [10]. These bony projections tension adjacent ligaments, which may produce flexion gap asymmetry and femoral component malrotation [7], and increase the likelihood of interaction between implant components and surrounding tissue, to the detriment of the patient [10].

Success tied to accurate tibial cuts

The success of gap balancing, for both sequences, hinges on a precise proximal tibial cut; correct depth and alignment on the coronal and sagittal planes is critical to avoid femoral component malrotation [8]. If the resection is varus or valgus then either internal or external rotation, respectively, of the femoral component will occur [7, 8]. This can result in “a mismatch of flexion and extension gap dimensions” [7]. The tibial cut is used as a reference point for femoral resections, further reaffirming the importance of accuracy in the tibial resection.

 

If you start with the flexion gap

If a surgeon chooses to balance the extension gap first they are looking for parallel alignment of the tibial cut with the transepicondylar axis, which will be perpendicular to the anteroposterior axis. Required soft tissue releases are performed after the joint is correctly tensioned in flexion, using the above alignments to guide releases (Fig. 1). After this, the extension gap addressed [7].

 

Read the full article with your AO login


  • If you start with the flexion gap
  • If you start with extension balancing
  • Symmetric gaps
  • The case for gap balancing
  • The case against gap balancing
  • When not to use gap balancing
  • Conclusion
  • References
Additional Resources

Additional AO resources

Access videos, tools, and other assets to learn more about this topic.

Contributing experts

This series of articles was created with the support of the following specialists (in alphabetical order):

Matthew P Abdel MD

Mayo Clinic
Rochester, United States

Philipp von Roth MD

Charité-University Hospital
Berlin, Germany

This issue was created by Word+Vision Media Productions, Switzerland

 

References

  1. Tanaka K, Muratsu H, Mizuno K, et al. Soft tissue balance measurement in anterior cruciate ligament-resected knee joint: cadaveric study as a model for cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2007 Mar;12(2):149–153.
  2. Peters CL. Soft-tissue balancing in primary total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2006 55:413–417.
  3. Poilvache PL, Insall JN, Scuderi GR, et al. Rotational landmarks and sizing of the distal femur in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Oct; (331):35–46.
  4. Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R, et al. Internal femoral component malrotation in TKA significantly alters tibiofemoral kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Nov 11. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4778-1. [Epub ahead of print]
  5. Harman MK, Banks SA, Kirschner S, et al. Prosthesis alignment affects axial rotation motion after total knee replacement: a prospective in vivo study combining computed tomography and fluoroscopic evaluations. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Oct 13:206. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-206.
  6. Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, et al. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Nov;(356):144–153.
  7. Daines BK, Dennis DA. Measured Resection and Gap Balancing Technique in TKR. In: Hirschmann M, Becker R (eds.) The Unhappy Total Knee Replacement. Springer, Cham; 2015:47–57.
  8. Springer BD, Parratte S, Abdel MP. Measured resection versus gap balancing for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jul;472(7):2016–2022.
  9. Risitano S, Indelli PF. Is “symmetric” gap balancing still the gold standard in primary total knee arthroplasty? Ann Transl Med. 2017 Aug; 5(16): 325.
  10. Ramappa M, Port A. Unique relationship between osteophyte and femoral-tibia component size mismatch in determining polyethylene wear in primary total knee arthroplasty: a case report. J Med Case Reports. 2009; 3:59.
  11. Rassiwala M. Navigation Assisted Total Knee Replacement. Slides 19, 20. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/MurtuzaRassiwala/navigation-assisted-total-knee-replacement. Accessed: January 5, 2018.
  12. riffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR. Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Dec;15(8):970–973.
  13. Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM. Balanced Flexion and Extension Gaps Are Not Always of Equal Size. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Nov 8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.10.059. [Epub ahead of print].
  14. Heesterbeek PJ, Jacobs WC, Wymenga AB. Effects of the balanced gap technique on femoral component rotation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Apr;467(4):1015–1022.
  15. Sheth NP, Husain A, Nelson CL. Surgical Techniques for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Measured Resection, Gap Balancing, and Hybrid. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Jul;25(7):499–508.
  16. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Kim RH, et al. Gap balancing versus measured resection technique for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):102–107.
  17. Lee DH, Park JH, Song DI, et al. Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in TKA: comparison between navigation-assisted gap balancing and conventional measured resection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Mar;18(3):381–387.
  18. Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Kubo S, et al. Soft tissue balance using the tibia first gap technique with navigation system in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2012 May;36(5):975–980.
  19. Katz MA, Beck TD, Silber JS, et al. Determining femoral rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty: reliability of techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Apr;16(3):301–305.
  20. Boldt JG, Stiehl JB, Munzinger U, et al. Femoral component rotation in mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2006 Aug;13(4):284–289.
  21. Nakahara H, Okazaki K, Hamai S, et al. Does knee stability in the coronal plane in extension affect function and outcome after total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Jun;23(6):1693–1698.
  22. Fujii H, Azuma Y, Doi K. Coronal Stability of the Knee After Total Knee Arthroplasty with Gap-balancing Technique. Orthopaedic Proceedings. 2012 94-B(SUPP XLI)5. Available at: http://bjjprocs.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/94-B/SUPP_XLI/5. Accessed January 13, 2018.
  23. Nagai K, Muratsu H, Matsumoto T, et al. Soft tissue balance changes depending on joint distraction force in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Mar;29(3):520-524.
  24. Yoon JR, Jeong HI, Oh KJ, et al. In vivo gap analysis in various knee flexion angles during navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013 Dec;28(10):1796-1800.
  25. Fehring TK. Rotational malalignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Nov;(380):72-79.
  26. Churchill JL, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, et al. Gap-Balancing versus Measured Resection Technique in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison Study. J Knee Surg. 2017 Nov 27. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608820. [Epub ahead of print]
  27. Nikolaides AP, Kenanidis EI1, Papavasiliou KA, et al. Measured resection versus gap balancing technique for femoral rotational alignment: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Aug;22(2):158-162.
X
Cookies help us improve your website experience.
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies.
Confirm