HINTEGRA Revision Arthroplasty for Failed Total Ankle Prostheses: Surgical Technique

Lack of Consensus on the Definition of Aseptic Loosening in Total Ankle Replacement: A Narrative Systematic Review

Background: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common modes of failure of total ankle replacement (TAR). However, a precise definition of aseptic loosening is still lacking. This systematic review aimed to identify the variations of applied definitions and offer insights into the lack of consensus. Methods: Human studies reporting aseptic loosening of TAR published in peer-reviewed journals within the last decade were considered. The search strategy involved specific terms in Embase, MEDLINE ALL, and the Cochrane Library. Variations in aseptic loosening definitions were analysed. Results: Of 767 studies, 88 were included in this study. Only nine studies precisely defined aseptic loosening with significant variations. Twenty-two studies referenced the term and fifty-seven reported it as a complication but neither defined nor referenced it. Conclusions: Significant uncertainty exists regarding the universal definition of aseptic loosening of TAR, and many variations occur in terms of the assessment approach and criteria.

Survival and risk assessment in revision arthroplasty of the ankle

Aims

Implant failure has become more common as the number of primary total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) performed has increased. Although revision arthroplasty has gained attention for functional preservation, the long-term results remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of revision TAA using a mobile-bearing prosthesis in a considerably large cohort; the risk factors for failure were also determined.

Methods

This single-centre retrospective cohort study included 116 patients (117 ankles) who underwent revision TAA for failed primary TAA between July 2000 and March 2010. Survival analysis and risk factor assessment were performed, and clinical performance and patient satisfaction were evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up.

Results

The mean duration from initial revision TAA to last follow-up was 15.0 years (SD 3.0; 11.2 to 20.5). The cumulative survival rates of the revised ankles were 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74% to 88%), 74% (65% to 82%), and 70% (61% to 79%) at five, ten, and 15 years, respectively. Comorbidities prior to primary TAA, aseptic loosening, instability, or grafting of cysts were found to be the most common risk factors for secondary revision. The median value for preoperative pain, as assessed using the visual analogue scale, declined from 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 5 to 8) to 2 (IQR 0 to 5) (p < 0.001) and the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score improved from 43 (SD 17) preoperatively to 70 (SD 20) (p < 0.001) at last follow-up.

Conclusion

Revision TAA offers acceptable survival rates after 15 years; it therefore offers a valuable option for treatment of implant failure in carefully selected cases. Although patient-reported outcomes improve substantially, the degree of improvement reported following primary TAA is not achieved.

Survival of revision ankle arthroplasty

Aims

The number of revision total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) which are undertaken is increasing. Few studies have reported the survival after this procedure. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the survival of revision ankle arthroplasties using large datasets. Secondary aims were to summarize the demographics of the patients, the indications for revision TAA, further operations, and predictors of survival.

Methods

The study combined data from the National Joint Registry and NHS Digital to report the survival of revision TAA. We have previously reported the failure rates and risk factors for failure after TAA, and the outcome of fusion after a failed TAA, using the same methodology. Survival was assessed using life tables and Kaplan Meier graphs. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to compare failure rates.

Results

A total of 228 patients underwent revision TAA. The mean follow-up was 2.6 years (SD 2.0). The mean time between the initial procedure and revision was 2.3 years (SD 1.8). The most commonly used implant was the Inbone which was used in 81 patients. A total of 29 (12.7%) failed; nine (3.9%) patients underwent a further revision, 19 (8.3%) underwent a fusion, and one (0.4%) had an amputation. The rate of survival was 95.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.6 to 97.5) at one year, 87.7% (95% CI 81.9 to 91.7; n = 124) at three years and 77.5% (95% CI 66.9 to 85.0; n = 57) at five years. Revision-specific implants had a better survival than when primary implants were used at revision. A total of 50 patients (21.9%) had further surgery; 19 (8.3%) underwent reoperation in the first 12 months. Cox regression models were prepared. In crude analysis the only significant risk factors for failure were the use of cement (hazard ratio (HR) 3.02 (95% CI 1.13 to 8.09)) and the time since the primary procedure (HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.97)). No risk factors for failure were identified in multivariable Cox regression modelling.

Conclusion

Revision TAAs have good medium term survival and low rates of further surgery. New modular revision implants appear to have improved the survival compared with the use of traditional primary implants at revision.

Use of Femoral Head Allograft for Extended Bone Loss in Revision Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Case Report

CASE

A 38-year-old male patient presented with severe ankle pain 13 years after a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). Radiographic evaluation revealed loosening of the implant and extensive osteolytic lesions. The medial tibial plafond and malleolus were reconstructed using a fresh-frozen femoral head graft, and revision TAA was performed. The midterm results were satisfactory, with adequate integration of the allograft and stable implant components.

CONCLUSION

The use of the allograft technique in revision TAA is feasible in the presence of severe bone loss, including the malleoli, and allows firm component fixation of the reconstructed bone.

How Does a Novel In Situ Fixed-bearing Implant Design Perform in Revision Ankle Arthroplasty in the Short Term? A Survival, Clinical, and Radiologic Analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the growing number of primary total ankle replacements (TAR), an increase in the number of patients undergoing subsequent revisions might be expected. Achieving a stable and balanced ankle while preserving the remaining bone stock as much as possible is crucial for success in revision TAR. Most reported techniques rely on bulky implants with extended fixation features. Since 2018, we have used a novel, three-component ankle prosthesis for revision that is converted in situ to a fixed-bearing, two-component ankle prosthesis once the components have found their position according to an individual's anatomy. The results of this novel concept (fixation, revision, pain, or function) have not, to our knowledge, been reported.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

What are the short-term results with this new revision TAR design, in terms of (1) repeat revision surgery, (2) patient-reported outcomes on the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, (3) pain according to the VAS, and (4) radiographic signs of fixation?

METHODS

Between February 2018 and February 2020, we performed 230 TAR surgeries (in 206 patients) for any indication in our clinic. The novel semiconstrained, uncemented Hintermann Series H2 © implant was used in 96% (220 of 230) of procedures (201 patients). Fifty-four percent (119 of 220) of these were converted from an existing TAR to H2, which was the focus of the present study. However, only 45% (54 of 119) of these conversions to H2 were eligible for analysis. These patients had a mean age of 63 ± 12 years, and 43% (23 of 54) were women. The median (range) follow-up time was 3.2 years (2.0 to 4.3). The H2 design allows in situ conversion to a fixed-bearing system, with minimal bone resection. It achieves translational and rotational stability while preserving function and supporting the periarticular soft tissues. We defined repeat revision as exchange of one or both metal components, ankle fusion, or amputation and assessed it using a cumulative incidence survivorship estimator. Factors potentially associated with revision were assessed using Cox regression analyses. Clinical and radiologic outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at the most recent follow-up interval. Clinical outcomes included pain on the VAS (average pain during normal daily activity during the past seven days) and AOFAS score. Radiologic outcomes were the tibial articular surface angle, tibiotalar surface angle, talar tilt angle in the coronal plane, and AP offset ratio in the sagittal plane, as well as radiolucent lines and radiographic signs of loosening, defined as change in position greater than 2° of the flat base of the tibia component in relation to the long axis of the tibia, subsidence of the talar component into the talus greater than 5 mm, or change in position greater than 5° relative to a line drawn from the top of the talonavicular joint to the tuberosity of the calcaneus, as seen on plain weightbearing radiographs.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of repeat revision after 1 and 2 years was 5.6% (95% CI 0% to 11%) and 7.4% (95% CI 0% to 14%), respectively. With the numbers available, no clinical factors we analyzed were associated with the risk of repeat revision. The median values of all assessed clinical outcomes improved; however, not all patients improved by clinically important margins. The median (range) AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score increased (from 50 [16 to 94] to 78 [19 to 100], difference of medians 28; p < 0.01), and the median pain on the VAS decreased (from 5 [0 to 9] to 2 [0 to 9], difference of medians 3; p < 0.01) from before surgery to follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. Radiographically, lucency was seen in 12% (6 of 49 patients) and loosening was seen in 8% (4 of 49). One of these patients showed symptomatic loosening and was among the four patients overall who underwent revision. We could not assess risk factors for repeat revision because of the low number of events (four).

CONCLUSION

The investigated new in situ fixed-bearing ankle design achieved overall better short-term results than those reported in previous research. Destabilization of the ankle joint complex, soft tissue insufficiency, and possible changes of the joint configuration need an optimal solution in revision arthroplasty. The studied implant might be the answer to this complex issue and help surgeons in the perioperative decision-making process. However, a relatively high percentage of patients did not achieve a clinically important difference. Observational studies are needed to understand long-term implant behavior and possibly to identify ankles benefiting the most from revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

The outcomes of revision surgery for a failed ankle arthroplasty

Aims

Revision rates for ankle arthroplasties are higher than hip or knee arthroplasties. When a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) fails, it can either undergo revision to another ankle replacement, revision of the TAA to ankle arthrodesis (fusion), or amputation. Currently there is a paucity of literature on the outcomes of these revisions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the outcomes of revision TAA with respect to surgery type, functional outcomes, and reoperations.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane reviews were searched for relevant papers. Papers analyzing surgical treatment for failed ankle arthroplasties were included. All papers were reviewed by two authors. Overall, 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed.

Results

Six papers analyzed all-cause reoperations of revision ankle arthroplasties, and 14 papers analyzed failures of conversion of a TAA to fusion. It was found that 26.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4% to 40.1%) of revision ankle arthroplasties required further surgical intervention and 13.0% (95% CI 4.9% to 23.4%) of conversion to fusions; 14.4% (95% CI 8.4% to 21.4%) of revision ankle arthroplasties failed and 8% (95% CI 4% to 13%) of conversion to fusions failed.

Conclusion

Revision of primary TAA can be an effective procedure with improved functional outcomes, but has considerable risks of failure and reoperation, especially in those with periprosthetic joint infection. In those who undergo conversion of TAA to fusion, there are high rates of nonunion. Further comparative studies are required to compare both operative techniques. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):596–606.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Ceramic-Based Total Ankle Arthroplasty with Ceramic Total Talar Prosthesis and Ceramic-Based Total Ankle Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) has become one of the standard surgical treatments for patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis (OA). In recent years, TAA with total talar prosthesis (combined TAA) has been used for ankle OA patients with talar osteonecrosis, with severe talar collapse, or with subtalar joint OA. The purpose of this study was to investigate the functional and clinical outcomes of combined TAA, compared with conventional TAA.

METHODS

Forty-six ankles (44 patients, 32 women/12 men) that underwent conventional TAA with mean follow-up of 42 months, and 26 ankles (25 patients, 18 women/7 men) that underwent combined TAA with mean follow-up of 46 months were included. Clinical outcomes, which included ankle range of motion (ROM), the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) ankle-hindfoot scale, the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q), and complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The preoperative ROM was significantly worse in combined TAA for both dorsiflexion and plantarflexion; however, in the final ROM, there was no significant difference between the groups. There was no significant difference in JSSF scale and SAFE-Q between the groups. Revision rate was 10.9% in conventional TAA and 0% in combined TAA.

CONCLUSION

In this small series, at an average of 3.5 years, we found no significant difference in clinical results between conventional TAA and combined TAA; however, the revision rate was higher in conventional TAA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.