Comparison of soft tissue balancing, femoral component rotation, and joint line change between the gap balancing and measured resection techniques in primary total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND This meta-analysis was designed to compare the accuracy of soft tissue balancing and femoral component rotation as well as change in joint line positions, between the measured resection and gap balancing techniques in primary total knee arthroplasty. METHODS Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they compared soft tissue balancing and/or radiologic outcomes in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty with the gap balancing and measured resection techniques. Comparisons included differences in flexion/extension, medial/lateral flexion, and medial/lateral extension gaps (LEGs), femoral component rotation, and change in joint line positions. Finally, 8 studies identified via electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches were included. All 8 studies showed a low risk of selection bias and provided detailed demographic data. There was some inherent heterogeneity due to uncontrolled bias, because all included studies were observational comparison studies. RESULTS The pooled mean difference in gap differences between the gap balancing and measured resection techniques did not differ significantly (-0.09 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.40 to +0.21 mm; P = 0.55), except that the medial/LEG difference was 0.58 mm greater for measured resection than gap balancing (95% CI: -1.01 to -0.15 mm; P = 0.008). Conversely, the pooled mean difference in femoral component external rotation (0.77°, 95% CI: 0.18° to 1.35°; P = 0.01) and joint line change (1.17 mm, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.52 mm; P < 0.001) were significantly greater for the gap balancing than the measured resection technique. CONCLUSION The gap balancing and measured resection techniques showed similar soft tissue balancing, except for medial/LEG difference. However, the femoral component was more externally rotated and the joint line was more elevated with gap balancing than measured resection. These differences were minimal (around 1 mm or 1°) and therefore may have little effect on the biomechanics of the knee joint. This suggests that the gap balancing and measured resection techniques are not mutually exclusive.