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

Abstract

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.