Revision arthrodesis of the ankle: posterior inlay bone grafting in 11 patients

Total Ankle Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Symptomatic Nonunion Following Tibiotalar Fusion

Background Nonunion of an ankle arthrodesis is associated with significant pain and morbidity. Revision arthrodesis presents greater short-term morbidity and long-term sequelae. 1-6 Recent reports have demonstrated the feasibility of converting a symptomatic nonunion of an ankle arthrodesis to a total ankle arthroplasty.7-9 The objective of the present study was to evaluate the short-term outcome associated with take down of symptomatic nonunions of ankle arthrodeses and conversion to a fixed bearing, intramedullary total ankle arthroplasty. Methods Five patients with symptomatic, aseptic tibiotalar arthrodesis nonunions (average age, 62.2 years), who underwent conversion to a total ankle arthroplasty were retrospectively identified and assessed at a prospective office visit. Minimum follow-up was 12 months (average, 21.3 months). Clinical outcomes were assessed on the basis of the American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score10 and the Foot Function Index.11,12 Radiographic analysis, patient satisfaction and pain levels were also evaluated. Results The average post-operative AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 82.6, while the FFI was 28.2%. The average clinical range of motion was 35 degrees. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores averaged 31.1 out of 100. Four out of the five patients were very satisfied or satisfied. Radiographically, the tibial and talar components were stable in all patients without evidence of loosening, migration, or subsidence. There were no complications requiring additional procedures. Conclusions Patients undergoing ankle arthrodesis that is complicated by an aseptic nonunion pose a difficult clinical problem. Conversion to a total ankle arthroplasty with a fixed bearing, intramedullary implant is a viable treatment option with reliable short-term results.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level IV: Case series.

Does autogenous bone graft work? A logistic regression analysis of data from 159 papers in the foot and ankle literature

BACKGROUND

While autogenous cancellous iliac crest bone graft is the gold standard for foot and ankle surgery, it lacks Level I evidence. Although one third of all graft cases performed in the United States today rely on allograft, some surgeons believe no graft is necessary. We hypothesized that a systematic review of the foot and ankle literature would reveal that (1) autogenous bone graft during foot and ankle arthrodesis would demonstrate healing rates that were superior to the use of either using allograft or no bone graft at all, and (2) these differences would be even more dramatic in patients having risk factors that impair bone healing. To our knowledge, neither of these assessments to date has ever been performed with this body of literature. The goal of this study was to review the use and union rates of bone graft during foot and ankle arthrodesis and determine if autogenous bone graft was superior.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to include articles between 1959 and 2012 using autograft, allograft, and/or no bone graft for foot and/or ankle arthrodesis. Case reports involving fewer than four patients, investigations failing to incorporate outcome data, those involving orthobiologic augmentation, and those including vascularized graft, xenograft, or pediatric patients were excluded. Recorded search results included patient demographics, comorbidities, pre-operative diagnosis, surgical procedure, bone graft type and indication, union rate, method of fixation, patient satisfaction, all outcome scores, definition of healing/success, and any listed complications including revision. Final data were stratified based upon the type of graft material.

RESULTS

This search generated 953 related articles, of which 159 studies (5327 patients) met inclusion criteria. The majority (153/159) were retrospective case series. Systematic review demonstrated a trend toward higher union rates for cancellous autograft (OR 1.39, p=0.11), structural autograft (OR 1.52, p=0.09), and cancellous allograft (OR 1.31, p=0.52) relative to no graft material, but none reached statistical significance. Compared to no graft, structural allograft trended toward worse performance (OR 0.62, p=0.17). The overall probability of union was 93.7% for cancellous autograft, 94.2% for structural autograft, 93.3% for cancellous allograft, 91.4% for no graft, and 86.9% for structural allograft. When only comparing the 19 papers that included a no graft arm (91.9% union rate), data revealed the highest union using cancellous autograft (95.1%, OR 1.73, p=0.09) and structural autograft (96.3%, OR 2.33, p=0.06) while only 76% for structural allograft. No significant statistical association existed between union rates and other recorded variables.

CONCLUSION

Systematic analysis of bone graft use in foot and ankle fusions favors the use of autograft and cancellous allograft for optimized healing rates, although no differences were statistically significant. If we assume that graft material been chosen for more complex procedures having lower anticipated union rates, then these data lend further support to the use of autograft and cancellous allograft.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The slot graft technique for foot and ankle arthrodesis in a high-risk patient group

BACKGROUND

High rates of arthrodesis nonunion have been described in the ankle, hindfoot and midfoot in patients with significant risk factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate fusion rates, risk of reoperation, postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction for a slot graft inlay arthrodesis technique used in a high-risk group of foot and ankle patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all ankle, hindfoot and midfoot arthrodeses by two foot and ankle surgeons in our institution between January 2000 and January 2009. Seventeen arthrodesis procedures in 16 patients using the slot graft technique were identified. Patient charts were reviewed for medical history, risk factors, previous surgery and postoperative complications. Time to union was evaluated on radiographs. Patients provided final followup by phone with an assessment of pain, overall satisfaction and use of orthotic or assistive devices.

RESULTS

Union occurred in 13 arthrodesis procedures (77%) with an average time to union of 5 months. Postoperative infection occurred in one patient. Additional surgery was performed in nine patients. At final followup patients reported low pain scores (3 of 10) and high satisfaction (8 of 10). Fourteen of 15 patients contacted indicated that they would choose to undergo the procedure again.

CONCLUSION

The slot graft arthrodesis technique provided satisfactory results in this small group of patients with a low complication rate. Patient satisfaction rates were high with low pain scores at an average of 62 months postoperatively.