Survival of revision ankle arthroplasty

Five-Year Results of the Salto XT Revision Ankle Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The treatment of failed ankle replacements is debated, and little is published about the medium- and long-term results of revision implants. We wanted to examine prosthesis survival and physical function at least 5 years after insertion of the Salto XT revision prosthesis.

METHODS

All consecutive patients operated with a Salto XT revision prosthesis underwent clinical and radiologic examinations preoperatively and after 3, 12, 24, and 60 months. Complications and reoperations are described, and changes in patient-reported outcome measures and clinical scores are reported.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were operated with a Salto XT revision prosthesis between March 2014 and March 2017. Three of these were revised (1 to a fusion and 2 to a new prosthesis), and 3 patients were reoperated with screw removal. A concurrent subtalar fusion was performed on 13 patients, and there was 1 case of likely nonunion after these procedures, but no reoperations. The mean AOFAS score increased from 39.2 (95% CI 30.8-47.5) preoperatively to 75.1 (95% CI 67.3-82.9) after 5 years, and the mean improvement was 34.2 points (95% CI 23.8-44.6). Mean EQ-5D increased from 0.36 (95% CI 0.30-0.42) preoperatively to 0.74 (95% CI 0.64-0.85) after 5 years, an improvement of 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.49). Radiolucent lines were present in all but 3 patients. Five-year prosthesis survival was 93% (83.6-100).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to present medium-term results of this implant. We found good improvement in outcome scores and good implant survival, but also a high prevalence of radiolucent lines.

Median age of patients undergoing total ankle replacement has not significantly changed between 1999 and 2023: A systematic review of prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

Total ankle replacement (TAR) is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the age of patients undergoing TAR in prospective comparative studies. Our hypothesis is that the age reported in most recent papers might be lower than those reported in older papers.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Only Level I and II studies dealing with TAR were included. Data regarding demographics, study design, number of cohorts in each study, year of publication and year/years in which surgery was performed were extracted. A two-fold analysis was conducted building groups of patients based on the year of publication and creating 1) two groups (before and after the median year) and 2) three groups (using tertiles) in order to compare age of patients operated in different period of times. A comparison was also performed considering the median year of surgery for patients undergoing TAR.

RESULTS

Overall 59 cohorts (42 studies, published between 1999 and 2023; median year of publication: 2017) were included (6397 ankles, 6317 patients, median age 63 years). The difference between the median age for 27 cohorts published until 2016 (weighted median 63 years; IQR, 62.5-64) and the median age for 32 cohorts published after 2017 (weighted median 63.2 years; IQR, 63-67.8) was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). The division in tertiles did not reveal any significant change in the weighted median age at surgery (T1 (1999-2014; 63.2 years; IQR, 62.8-64.1), T2 (2015-2018; 63 years; IQR,63-63.5) and T3 (2019-2023; 63.2 years; IQR, 62.6-67.8)) over time (p = 0.65). The median age of patients operated between 1999 and 2008 vs 2009 and 2023 (data from 48 cohorts) was not different either (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

According to this review of prospective studies published between 1999 and 2023, the median age for patients undergoing TAR over the last two decades has been 63 years, remaining steady with no significant changes over time.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II - systematic review including Level I and Level II studies.

Lessons From Revision Total Ankle Replacement: Tibias Fail Earlier, and Taluses Fail Later (and Fail Again)

BACKGROUND

The literature on survivorship and outcomes after revision total ankle replacement (TAR) in the modern era is limited. This study aimed to describe the timing to revision and survivorship after revision TAR. We hypothesized that tibial-sided failures would occur earlier after the primary TAR, and secondary revisions after failure of revision TAR would occur more due to talar-sided failures than tibial-sided failures.

METHODS

This is a single-institution retrospective study of TAR patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. Revision TARs (defined as exchange of tibial and/or talar components) for aseptic causes with any implant were included. Etiology of failure necessitating revision and ultimate outcomes after revision (survival of TAR revision, additional revision, conversion to fusion, and below-knee amputation [BKA]) were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 46 revision TARs, with mean age of 60.6 (range: 31-77) years and mean 3.5 years' follow-up postrevision. Revisions for tibial failure occurred significantly earlier (n = 22, 1.3 ± 0.5 years after index procedure) than those for talar failure (n = 19, 2.3 ± 1.7 years after index procedure) or combined tibial-talar failure (n = 5, 3.4 ± 3.4 years after index procedure) (P = .015). Revisions for tibial-only failure had better survival (95.5%) than revisions for talar or combined tibial-talar failures: 26% of talar failures and 20% of combined tibial-talar failures underwent ≥1 revisions. Of the 6 additional revisions after failure of the talar component, 1 ultimately underwent BKA, 2 were converted to total talus replacement, 2 were revised to modular augmented talar components, and 1 was treated with explant and cement spacer for PJI after the revision.

CONCLUSION

TAR tibial failures occurred earlier than talar failures or combined tibial-talar failures. Revisions for talar failures and combined tibial-talar failures were more likely to require additional revision or ultimately fail revision treatment. This is important given the consequences of talar implant subsidence, bone necrosis, loss of bone stock, and limited salvage options.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.