4.3 Article

Intermediate-term Results of Mobile-bearing Total Ankle Replacement

Journal

FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 518-530

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1071100714561058

Keywords

total ankle replacement; TAR; periprosthetic osteolytic lesions

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The literature analyzing total ankle replacement (TAR) results should be critically interpreted because studies made by the design surgeons are potentially subject to bias. European nondesigner surgeon studies reviewing the HINTEGRA TAR system are scarce in the literature. The present study is a European nondesigner surgeon study reviewing a consecutive series of 50 HINTEGRA TAR systems with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, focusing on clinical and radiographic outcomes. Methods: Fifty primary TAR procedures were performed between February 2008 and January 2012 by a single surgeon. Every patient underwent a standardized clinical and radiographic follow-up at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively and annually thereafter. The mean time to final follow-up was 45 months. Results: The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale score significantly increased from 43.5 preoperatively to 83.8 postoperatively. Clinical range of motion of the ankle also improved from 23.3 degrees preoperatively to 28.3 degrees postoperatively. In 70% of the TAR procedures, the talar component was positioned anteriorly with respect to the tibial axis. Radiological evidence of osteolysis was identified in 24 ankles. The failure rate in the present series was 10%, which was defined as having major revision surgery within 4 years. Conclusion: The survival of the first 50 HINTEGRA TAR systems in this series was satisfactory from clinical and radiological points of view. However, the incidence of asymptomatic periprosthetic osteolytic lesions was quite high (24 ankles).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available