Adult Reconstruction · Knee

TKA Sagittal Balance Lab

Explore how bone cuts, femoral sizing, posterior slope, constraint, inserts, and augments change the flexion and extension gaps in conventional total knee arthroplasty.

Educational use only

OrthoAnimate modules demonstrate concepts and support teaching. They are not validated patient-specific planning or clinical decision-support systems.

PreviewVersion 0.12.1Updated

Start here

Select New learning case, then bring both gap numbers under the knee back into the 1.5–3 mm target band.

What you’ll learn 3 objectives
  • Predict how each lever moves the extension gap, the flexion gap, or both.
  • Diagnose the imbalance from the two gap numbers using the gap matrix.
  • Correct it while respecting irreversible steps — resected bone cannot be replaced.

This is a resident teaching model with editable assumptions and explicit limitations. It is not patient-specific and must not guide clinical decisions.

The workspace opens full screen so the knee stays in view while you adjust the plan.

Fix

    Lever directions are organised with the Ries balancing framework [1]. Open each control's i popup for supporting studies and limitations.

    Gap matrix

    i
    Teaching framework

    The nine-cell matrix is adapted from Ries, Haas and Windsor's revision-TKA balancing framework. It organises lever direction; it is not a validated patient-specific prescription or proof that one plan is clinically optimal. [1]

    Flexion gap
    Extension gap

    Lateral knee

    Gaps are measured between the articular surfaces at the midline. In flexion the femur rolls back posteriorly onto the insert.

    Select the femoral component, the femur, the tibial tray, the insert, or the tibia in either view to adjust it in place. The full control panel remains available alongside, and is the complete keyboard and screen-reader equivalent.

    Extension · 0°
    Flexion · 90°

    Plan the cuts & components

    Arrows nudge one maneuver at a time.

    Learning cases random intra-operative scenario · read the gaps, then check the assessment
    Bone cuts 2 mm increments · cannot be reversed
    Components
    Constraint
    i
    CR and PS

    CR retains the PCL; PS resects it and uses a cam-post mechanism. The app treats conversion as one-way because ligament resection and box preparation are irreversible steps. Implant-specific indications and balancing behaviour vary. [14]

    PCL resected vs retained
    Advanced implant controls augments · 5 mm increments · restore resected bone
    i
    Not a clinical optimum

    The solver searches legal model states and applies local weights for target proximity, insert thickness, resections, augments, slope, size and PCL release. Literature supports the direction of individual levers; it does not validate these software weights or a single optimal plan.

    Evidence & governance Assumptions · limitations · provenance · references
    Evidence & governance

    How to interpret this lab

    Model assumptions
    This is a conventional mechanical-alignment, measured-resection, anterior-referencing teaching framework [1]. Femoral rotation is set from anatomic landmarks, not from a tensioned gap, so it is not a balancing lever here; coronal balance is handled separately. Bone cuts are irreversible — resections only increase (2 mm increments) and bone is restored only with augments (5 mm increments). Constraint conversion is one-way in the model: after PCL resection and PS box preparation, returning to CR is unavailable [14]. PCL recession is a named teaching assumption: three equal grades produce a total 1.5 mm flexion-predominant effect. Clinical magnitude is unpredictable and extension may also change [4] [5] [12]. Aim for the thinnest available insert that balances (the model ladder starts at 9 mm). Sizing is generic: one femoral size is modelled as 2.5 mm A/P, essentially all posterior with anterior referencing [11]. The 1.5–3 mm target is a teaching band, not a universal validated threshold; published targets vary by compartment, technique and outcome [8] [15].
    Limitations
    What this module does not model or validate:
    • Not patient-specific and not validated. The gap model is linear — adequate for the relationships being taught, not for quantitative or patient-specific claims.
    • Sagittal plane only. Coronal balance, mid-flexion instability, and patellofemoral tracking are out of scope; femoral rotation is set from anatomic landmarks and is not a balancing lever here.
    • Only two positions are evaluated — 0° and 90°. Laxity between and beyond them is not represented.
    • Generic implant ladder. Sizes, increments, and insert thicknesses are a teaching approximation within the range reported for contemporary systems, not any specific manufacturer's geometry.
    • Individual ligament response is not predictable. The PCL recession grades and slope coefficients are population-level approximations; a given knee may respond differently, and extension may also change.
    • The model-preferred plan is not a clinical optimum. It is the lowest-scoring legal state under this module's local weights; other plans may be equally reasonable.
    • Overstuffed constructs (a negative gap) clamp the drawn band to a sliver while still reporting the true negative value.
    Attribution and provenance
    • Anatomy artwork. The lateral-knee geometry is drawn from a commissioned labelled SVG. Extension and 90° flexion use separately authored femur, femoral-component, and patella paths; CR and PS use their own authored insert paths. The tibia, tray, inserts, and fibula share one coordinate system.
    • Drawing scale. All linear motion derives from the artwork's own geometry — the templated size-5 component spans 174.52 SVG units for a modelled 64 mm A/P, giving 2.727 units/mm.
    • Model constants are teaching approximations documented in Model assumptions, with their evidential basis in each control's info popup and in Evidence and references below.
    • Software. Plain HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with no third-party runtime libraries or external requests; typography is the shared platform stack. See the site third-party notices.
    Evidence and references 17 peer-reviewed sources
    1. Ries MD, Haas SB, Windsor RE. Soft-tissue balance in revision total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Am. 2004. PubMed
    2. Minoda Y, et al. Four-millimeter additional distal femoral resection does not produce an equivalent extension-gap increase. J Arthroplasty. 2021. PubMed
    3. Okazaki K, et al. Influence of the posterior tibial slope on the flexion gap in TKA. The Knee. 2014. DOI
    4. Kayani B, et al. PCL resection: effects on flexion-extension gaps and laxity. Bone Joint J. 2019. PubMed
    5. Schnurr C, et al. Is the effect of PCL resection predictable? Int Orthop. 2012. PubMed
    6. Mueller JK, et al. Femoral and tibial insert downsizing increases the laxity envelope in TKA. KSSTA. 2014. PubMed
    7. Jhurani A, et al. Influence of femoral component downsizing on knee extension and the extension gap. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025. PubMed
    8. Okamoto S, et al. Extension gap needs more than 1-mm laxity after implantation to avoid flexion contracture. KSSTA. 2014. PubMed
    9. Iwasaki N, et al. Additional distal femoral resection and extension-angle improvement in robot-assisted TKA. The Knee. 2024. PubMed
    10. Han HS, et al. Femoral joint-line restoration is a major determinant of postoperative range of motion in revision TKA. KSSTA. 2019. PubMed
    11. Campbell B, et al. Evaluation of anatomic referencing for femoral component sizing. J Knee Surg. 2024. PubMed
    12. Tu KC, et al. Disproportionate flexion- and extension-gap changes after PCL resection. J Clin Med. 2021. PubMed
    13. Ayob KA, Liu DW. Proximal tibial resection alone and gap changes in tibia-first robotic PS-TKA. Clin Orthop Surg. 2026. PubMed
    14. D'Anchise R, et al. PCL-retaining and posterior-stabilized TKA: differences in surgical technique. Joints. 2013. PubMed
    15. Wakelin EA, et al. Improved pain outcomes when joint-gap targets are achieved throughout flexion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022. PubMed
    16. Nowakowski AM, et al. Increasing tibial slope affects both extension and flexion gaps. Int Orthop. 2014. PubMed
    17. Campbell BR, et al. Anatomic referencing of the distal femur: impact of orientation on component size. J Arthroplasty. 2024. DOI