4.3 Review

Arthroscopic Subtalar Joint Arthrodesis: Topical Review

期刊

FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 131-145

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10711007211035397

关键词

subtalar; arthrodesis; fusion; arthroscopic; arthritis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arthroscopic subtalar joint arthrodesis shows excellent union rates but higher complication rates, with metal irritation, nerve injury, and infection being the most common.
Background: Advances in foot and ankle arthroscopy over the last 2 decades have allowed for subtalar joint arthrodesis to be performed arthroscopically. The potential advantages of the arthroscopic technique include higher fusion rates, lower complications, reduced perioperative morbidity, and accelerated rehabilitation. Arthroscopic arthrodesis may, however, not be appropriate in the setting of complex deformity correction or the need for other open procedures. Methods: Surgical techniques of arthroscopic subtalar joint arthrodesis are described. Outcomes and complications associated with these procedures are presented, based on a comprehensive literature review. Thirteen Level IV studies of moderate quality were included. Results and Conclusion: Excellent arthrodesis union rates were achieved (average 96%, range 86%-100%), at a weighted average union time of 8.8 weeks (95% confidence interval 7.9-9.7). The overall complication rate was 21% (87/415 feet; range 10%-36.4%). Metal irritation was the most common complication (11.2%), followed by nerve injury (4.2%) and infection (0.9%). Similar fusion rates have been reported when comparing arthroscopic and open arthrodesis. Complication rates are also similar, excerpt for infection, which may be lower with arthroscopy. Three different approaches were used to access the subtalar joint with similar union and complication rates. There was no evidence that the use of bone graft or more than 1 screw improved outcomes. The superiority of arthroscopic subtalar fusion over open techniques cannot be demonstrated by the available studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据