Short-term Clinical and Radiographic Results of the Salto Mobile Total Ankle Prosthesis

Abstract

Background:

The mobile-bearing Salto total ankle prosthesis has been reported to have promising outcomes. However, clinical reports on this prosthesis are few, and most have been published by the inventors and disclosed consultants.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed 59 patients who received Salto prosthesis unilaterally. The average follow-up was 35.9 (range, 6-56) months. Clinical and radiologic results were evaluated. Clinical results were evaluated according to visual analog scale (VAS), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) pain and disability score, and ankle range of motion (ROM) in dorsiflexion/plantarflexion. In the radiographic evaluation, we measured the tibial angle (TA), talar angle (TAL), tibial slope, and talocalcaneal angle (TCA) on weightbearing radiographs.

Results:

By the last follow-up, 7 of 59 patients (11.9%) had undergone reoperation, and 3 of 59 implants (5.1%) had been removed. The prosthesis survival was 94.9% (95% CI, 89.1%-100%). With any reoperation as the endpoint of follow-up, the clinical success rate was 88.1% (95% CI, 79.4%-96.9%). The mean postoperative visual analog scale score, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score, and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale pain and disability score improved significantly (P < .001). The ankle range of motion also improved from preoperative 33.4 ± 16.6 to 40.3 ± 15.5 postoperatively (P < .001); however, there was no statistically significant change in plantarflexion (P = .243). Radiolucent areas and osteolysis were found in 28 (47.5%) and 27 (45.8%) patients, respectively. Heterotopic ossification was observed in 13 patients (22.0%).

Conclusions:

In this series, early clinical and radiographic outcomes of this prosthesis were promising. We believe the early radiolucent lines were probably due to the gap at the implant and bone interface, and they disappeared at the time of osseous integration. However, longer follow-up is necessary to determine the long-term durability and survivorship of this implant, particularly given the high incidence of postoperative osteolysis.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV, case series.