Introduction: Balanced soft tissues are important to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. Surgical algorithms for balancing are potentially varied in varus and valgus osteoarthritic (OA) knees. While coronal plane varus knee laxity has been documented, no study has objectively defined the medial and lateral laxity of the valgus OA knee. The lower limb was manipulated at the time of TKA using computer navigation, prior to surgical releases, to allow the limb weight-bearing axis to pass through the knee center in maximum extension, 20 and 90 of flexion. The hip-knee-ankle-angle was documented at this position. Coronal plane laxity was then measured in 30 valgus (7.9 + 4.0) knees as medial and lateral displacement from this point and compared to published values for healthy subjects. In maximum knee extension, lateral contracture was present in 26.6% (8/30) of subjects, and abnormally lax medial tissue was present in 46.6% (14/30). Six patterns of medial versus lateral laxity were documented in maximum extension. In maximum knee extension, mean medial laxity was 7.1 (+3.8) compared to 2.7 (+2.7) laterally. In 20 of knee flexion, mean medial laxity was 8.5 (+3.5) compared to 3.0 (+2.6) laterally. In 90 of knee flexion, mean medial laxity was 3.7 (+1.3) and 7.5 (+3.0) laterally. A highly significant difference (p < 0.0001) in mean laxity was demonstrated when comparing medial versus lateral values at each measurement angle and for medial versus medial and lateral versus lateral values for maximum extension and 90 of flexion. The valgus knee at the time of TKA demonstrates significant preoperative mediolateral and flexion-extension imbalance. In maximum extension, medial tissue is significantly laxer whereas in flexion this reverses and the lateral tissue is significantly laxer. We documented more patterns of medial and lateral laxity in maximum extension than advocated in prior subjective grading systems. These findings demonstrate the challenges of valgus OA knee balancing during TKA but provide, for the first time, objective measures for the starting point of this process.

Background: Major revision is associated with less satisfactory outcomes, substantial complications, and added cost. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed to identify factors associated with major aseptic revision (MAR) of primary total knee replacement (TKR). Methods: The cumulative percent major aseptic revision rate following all primary TKRs performed in Australia from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2015, was assessed. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were utilized to describe the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were utilized to compare revision rates. Results: There were 5,973 MARs recorded from the total cohort of 478,081 primary TKRs. The cumulative percent MAR at 15 years was 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8% to 3.2%). Fixed bearings had a significantly lower rate of MAR at 15 years: 2.7% (95% CI, 2.4% to 2.9%) compared with 4.1% (95% CI, 3.8% to 4.5%) for mobile bearings (HR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.68 to 1.86]; p < 0.001). Age had a significant effect on MAR rates, with a cumulative percent revision at 15 years for patients <55 years old of 7.8% (95% CI, 6.5% to 9.2%) compared with 1.0% for those ≥75 years old (95% CI, 0.8% to 1.1%; p < 0.001). Minimally stabilized TKR had a lower rate of MAR compared with posterior-stabilized TKR after 2 years (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]; p < 0.001). Cementless fixation had a higher rate of revision than cemented or hybrid fixation. There was a higher rate of MAR with non-navigated compared with computer navigated TKR (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.44], p < 0.001). The tibial component was revised more commonly than the femoral component. Conclusions: Younger age, posterior stabilization, cementless fixation, a mobile bearing, and non-navigation were risk factors for higher rates of MAR following TKR. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.