4.5 Article

A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years

Journal

ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA
Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages 584-591

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/17453670710014266

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose There have been few reports of large series of ankle replacements. The aim of this study was to document and evaluate the early results of a nationwide series of total ankle replacements (TARs) performed using second- and third-generation implants. Methods Records of total ankle replacements performed between February 2000 and November 2005 were retrieved from the New Zealand National Joint Registry and retrospectively reviewed at a mean of 28 months after the primary procedure. At 6 months post surgery, patient scores were generated from questionnaires. Comparisons between patient scores and categorical variables were made using ANOVA. Regression analyses using Cox proportional-hazards modeling were performed to determine predictors of failure. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve was used to describe the rate of prosthetic survival. Results 202 total ankle replacements were performed in 183 patients. 14 prostheses (7%) failed. The overall cumulative 5-year failure-free rate was 86%. An unfavorable patient score at 6 months after the initial procedure turned out to be a good predictor of subsequent failure. The cumulative 5-year failure-free rate was 65% at 5 years for patients with an unfavorable score, and 95% for those who had a favorable patient score. Each 1-point increase in the patient score (i.e. poorer outcome) corresponded to a 5% relative increase in the risk of failure (p < 0.05). In addition, longer operative time for the primary procedure was found in the group of TARs that subsequently failed (p < 0.05). Interpretation The National Joint Registry appears to be a useful tool for monitoring the trends in TAR surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available