Clinical evaluation of arthrodesis with Ilizarov external fixator for the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: A retrospective study

A network meta-analysis of the efficacy of arthrodesis with various fixation methods in the treatment of advanced ankle osteoarthritis

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of arthrodesis with various fixation methods in the treatment of advanced ankle osteoarthritis. Thirty-two patients with osteoarthritis of the ankle (mean age 59.91±6.16 years) took part in the study. The patients were divided into 2 groups - Ilizarov apparatus (21 patients) and screw fixation (11 patients). Each group was also divided into subgroups based on etiology - posttraumatic and nontraumatic. The AOFAS and VAS scales were compared in the preoperative and postoperative periods. It was found that screw fixation was more effective in the treatment of late stages of osteoarthritis (OA) of the ankle during the postoperative period. Comparison of the AOFAS and VAS scales showed no significant differences between the groups in the preoperative period (p = 0.838; p = 0.937). After 6 months, the results were better in the screw fixation group (p = 0.042; p = 0.047). Complications were observed for a third of the patients (10 patients). 6 patients had pain in the operated limb (4 patients in the Ilizarov apparatus group). Three patients in the Ilizarov apparatus group developed a superficial infection, and one developed a deep infection. Different etiology did not affect the postoperative efficacy of arthrodesis. The choice of the type of should be related to a clear protocol for the presence of complications. When choosing the type of fixation for arthrodesis, a patient's condition as well as a surgeon's preferences should be taken into account.

Subjective and Objective Outcomes of Ankle Joint Arthrodesis with Either Ilizarov or Internal Fixation

After arthroplasty, arthrodesis of the ankle joint is the most common method to treat advanced ankle osteoarthritis. The goal of the study was to assess the subjective and objective outcomes in 2 different types of fixation for ankle joint arthrodesis. We retrospectively assessed 47 patients who had undergone ankle joint arthrodesis with fixation either via an Ilizarov apparatus (group 1) (n = 21) or cannulated screws (group 2) (n = 26). The outcomes were measured by: (1) the quantity of analgesics administered, (2) the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, (3) general patient satisfaction, (4) the patients' decision to undergo the same procedure given another chance, and (5) the necessity of blood transfusion during hospitalization. Data was collected at the last postoperative follow-up visit. The AOFAS scores in group 1 and group 2 patients were 73.9   ± 13 and 72.7  ±  14.3, respectively. In group 1, 17 patients (81%) were very satisfied with the results, while in group 2, 19 patients (73%) were very satisfied with the results (p = .043). Two group 1 patients (10%) and four group 2 patients (15.3%) reported that they were satisfied with the outcomes (p = .035). Two patients (10%) from group 1 and three patients (11%) from group 2 were fairly satisfied. Seventeen patients (81%) after arthrodesis with Ilizarov fixation and 21 patients (81%) after arthrodesis with internal fixation would choose the same procedure given the opportunity to choose again. In group 1 there were no patients who required blood transfusion; in group 2 one patient (4%) required blood transfusion; the difference was statistically significant (p = .039). Nineteen group 1 patients (90%) were administered an analgesic preoperatively, while postoperatively only 6 (29%) required analgesics. In group 2, 24 patients (92%) were administered analgesics preoperatively, with 8 (31%) of them still requiring analgesics postoperatively. Ankle arthrodesis patients from both group 1 and group 2 achieved good subjective and objective results of treatment. We noted slightly better results in the Ilizarov apparatus group.

Comparisons between ankle distraction arthroplasty and supramalleolar osteotomy for treatment of post-traumatic varus ankle osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Ankle distraction arthroplasty and supramalleolar osteotomy were both options for post-traumatic varus ankle arthritis (VAA), but their comparative effectiveness was scarcely reported. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of two operative methods for treatment of Takakura-Tanaka stage 3 post-traumatic VAA.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, comprising 73 consecutive patients who presented with Takakura-Tanaka stage 3 post-traumatic VAA treated by either ankle distraction arthroplasty (n = 32) or supramalleolar osteotomy (n = 41) from January 2016 to December 2019. All patients had a minimum 24-month follow-up assessments. The outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS), the American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores, complications, patient-rated overall satisfaction and ankle function.

RESULTS

At an average of 32 months (range, 24-52 months) follow-up, significant improvement was observed for VAS, AOFAS, range of motion (ROM) and most radiographic parameters (except for TAS and TLS for ankle distraction arthroplasty group) compared to preoperative baselines (p < 0.05) for both groups. However, both groups did not differ significantly in terms of VAS or AOFAS, excellent and good rate (78.1% versus 85.4%, p = 0.422), overall rate of postoperative complications (28.1% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.257), or various radiographic parameters (e.g. tibial anterior surface angle, talar tilt angle and tibial lateral surface angle) (all p > 0.05). The ankle distraction arthroplasty group had a better postoperative ankle motion than did the supramalleolar osteotomy group, in terms of plantarflexion (37.8 ± 4.2 vs. 30.4 ± 3.6, p = 0.006), dorsiflexion (36.5 ± 6.4 vs. 28.3 ± 5.5, p = 0.004), varus (32.1 ± 4.5 vs. 27.1 ± 3.1, p = 0.017) and valgus (28.4 ± 3.7 vs. 25.2 ± 2.8, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Both operative treatments are effective for Takakura-Tanaka stage 3 post-traumatic VAA. In practice, individualized treatment option tailored to the ankle condition and patients' specific need should be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

 III, retrospective comparative series.