Functional preoperative assessment of coronal knee laxity better predicts postoperative patient outcomes than intraoperative surgeon-defined laxity in total knee arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Intraoperative laxity assessments in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are subjective, with few studies comparing against standardised preoperative and postoperative assessments. This study compares coronal knee laxity in TKA patients awake and anaesthetised, preprosthesis and postprosthesis implantation, evaluating relationships to patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 49 TKA joints included preoperative and postoperative computed tomography scans, stress radiographs and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) questionnaire results preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. The imaging was used to assess functional laxity (FL) in awake patients, whereas computer navigation measured intraoperative surgical laxity (SL) preimplantation and postimplantation, with patients anaesthetised. Varus and valgus stress states and their difference, joint laxity, were measured. RESULTS: SL was greater than FL in both preimplantation [8.1° (interquartile range, IQR 2.0°) and 3.8° (IQR 2.9°), respectively] and postimplantation [3.5° (IQR 2.3°) and 2.5° (IQR 2.7°), respectively]. Preimplantation, SL was more likely than FL to categorise knees as correctable to ±3° of the mechanical axis. Preoperative FL correlated with KOOS Symptoms (r = 0.33, p = .02) and quality of life (QOL) (r = 0.38, p = .01), whereas reducing medial laxity with TKA enhanced postoperative QOL outcomes (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Functional coronal knee laxity assessment of awake patients is generally lower than intraoperative surgical assessments of anaesthetised patients. Preoperative SL may result in overcorrection of coronal TKA alignment, whereas preoperative FL better predicts postoperative patient outcomes and reflects the patients' native and tolerable knee laxity. Preoperative FL assessment can be used to guide surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II.