Abstract
Background:
In cases with total ankle replacement (TAR) failure, a decision between revision TAR and salvage arthrodesis (SA) must be made. In a previous study, we analyzed revision TAR and found low functional outcome and satisfaction. The aims of the current study were to analyze SA concerning failure rate and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs).
Methods:
Until September 2014, a total of 1110 primary TARs were recorded in the Swedish Ankle Registry. Of the 188 failures, 118 were revised with SA (and 70 with revision TAR). Patient- and implant-specific data for SA cases were analyzed as well as arthrodesis techniques. Failure of SA was defined as repeat arthrodesis or amputation. Generic and region-specific PROMs of 68 patients alive with a solid unilateral SA performed more than 1 year before were analyzed.
Results:
The first-attempt solid arthrodesis rate of SA was 90%. Overall, 25 of 53 (47%) patients were very satisfied or satisfied. Mean Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) was 22 (95% confidence interval 20-24), Euro Qol–5 Dimensions 0.57 (0.49-0.65), Euro Qol–Visual Analogue Scale 59 (53-64), Short Form-36 physical 34 (31-37) and mental 50 (46-54). The scores and satisfaction were similar to those after revision TAR but the reoperation rate was significantly lower in SA (P < .05).
Conclusion:
Salvage arthrodesis after failed TAR had a solid arthrodesis rate of 90% at first attempt, but similar to revision TAR, less than 50% of the patients were satisfied and the functional scores were low. Until studies show true benefit of revision TAR over SA, we favor SA for failed TAR.
Level of Evidence:
Level IV, retrospective case series.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
