Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Influence of Implant Design on Clinical Outcomes,Complications,and Revisions Rate in Anterior Approach Total Ankle Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is increasingly used as an alternative to arthrodesis for end-stage ankle arthritis. The extent to which implant bearing type and design evolution influence outcomes and survival remains debated.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251073944). PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched for English-language studies (2004-2025) reporting anterior-approach TAA with specified implant generation (I–IV) and bearing type (fixed [FB] vs mobile [MB]). Studies with a QualSyst score ≥ 75% were included. Primary outcomes were American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, visual analogue scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), complications, and revisions.
Results
Forty-two studies comprising 4,271 implants were analyzed (FB: 1,546; MB: 2,725). Functional improvements were mainly driven by implant generation rather than bearing type. ΔAOFAS increased from 33.7 ± 22.3 in Gen II to 44.5 ± 28.3 in Gen IV (P < .001). ΔVAS varied across generations (Gen II 5.8 ± 2.1; Gen III 4.6 ± 2.8; Gen IV 5.46 ± 1.60; all P < .001 vs baseline). MB implants showed lower pre- and postoperative AOFAS scores but comparable ΔAOFAS to FB designs (36.4 vs 37.5; P = .358). MB systems provided greater pain relief (ΔVAS 5.62 vs 4.60; P < .001) but had higher revision rates (12.0% vs 6.2%; P < .001). FB implants achieved superior postoperative ROM gains in plantarflexion (+6.0° vs −2.9°; P < .001) and dorsiflexion (+2.71° vs +0.75°; P < .001). Excluding Gen I, complication rates decreased from 32.6% in Gen II to 18.8% in Gen III and 10.3% in Gen IV (all P < .01); revision rates declined from 16.5% (Gen II) and 9.6% (Gen III) to 0.5% (Gen IV) (P < .01).
Conclusions
Implant generation is the primary determinant of outcomes, complications, and survival in anterior-approach TAA. Bearing type played a secondary role: MB devices provided greater pain relief, whereas FB systems achieved superior ROM recovery and lower revision risk. Fourth-generation implants yielded the most reliable results. Further prospective studies with standardized functional and kinematic assessments are warranted.
AlmutairiTARagabKMElsayedSM, et al. Safety and efficacy of total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis for ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot (Edinb). 2023;55:101980. doi:10.1016/j.foot.2023.101980
2.
González-AlonsoMTrapote-CubillasARMadera-GonzálezFJFernández-HernándezÓSánchez-LázaroJA. Fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total ankle replacement survivorship. Foot Ankle Surg. 2024;30(4):275-284. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.001
3.
LewisTLAyathamattamJVignarajaV, et al. Improvement in clinical outcomes following arthroscopic all-inside medial lateral ligament reconstruction for rotational ankle instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024;32(12):3090-3096. doi:10.1002/ksa.12244
4.
ShihCLChenSJHuangPJ. Clinical outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis for the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis in the last decade: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;59(5):1032-1039. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2019.10.008
GougouliasNKhannaAMaffulliN. How successful are current ankle replacements? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):199-208. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0987-3
7.
HenricsonANilssonJÅCarlssonA. 10-year survival of total ankle arthroplasties. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(6):655-659. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.636678
8.
ValderrabanoVPagenstertGIMüllerAMPaulJHenningerHBBargA. Mobile- and fixed-bearing total ankle prostheses: is there really a difference. Foot Ankle Clin. 2012;17(4):565-585. doi:10.1016/j.fcl.2012.08.005
9.
TomlinsonMHarrisonM. The New Zealand Joint Registry: report of 11-year data for ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Clin. 2012;17(4):719-723. doi:10.1016/j.fcl.2012.08.011
10.
UndénAJehpssonLKamradI, et al. Better implant survival with modern ankle prosthetic designs: 1,226 total ankle prostheses followed for up to 20 years in the Swedish Ankle Registry. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(2):191-196. doi:10.1080/17453674.2019.1709312
11.
BuechelFFPappasMJIorioLJ. New Jersey low contact stress total ankle replacement: biomechanical rationale and review of 23 cementless cases. Foot Ankle. 1988;8(6):279-290. doi:10.1177/107110078800800603
12.
GougouliasNMaffulliN. History of total ankle replacement. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2013;30(1):1-20. doi:10.1016/j.cpm.2012.08.005
13.
NunleyJAAdamsSBEasleyMEDeOrioJK. Prospective randomized trial comparing mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int. 2019;40(11):1239-1248. doi:10.1177/1071100719879680
14.
QueenRMFranckCTSchmittDAdamsSB. Are there differences in gait mechanics in patients with a fixed versus mobile bearing total ankle arthroplasty? A randomized trial. Clin Orthop. 2017;475(10):2599-2606. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5405-7
15.
GaudotFColombierJABonninMJudetT. A controlled, comparative study of a fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(2):131-140. doi:10.1177/1071100713517094
16.
RoukisTSElliottAD. Incidence of revision after primary implantation of the Salto ® mobile version and Salto Talaris TM total ankle prostheses: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg off Publ Am Coll Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54(3):311-319. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2014.05.005
17.
TerrierAFernandesCSGuilleminMCrevoisierX. Fixed and mobile-bearing total ankle prostheses: effect on tibial bone strain. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2017;48:57-62. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.07.009
18.
NadeauEKOttofaroTDMorningstarJLGrossCEScottD. Improved survival rates with fixed bearing total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2023;8(4):2473011423S00161. doi:10.1177/2473011423S00161
19.
St MartJPGohELHayDPilkingtonIBednarczukNAhluwaliaR. Contemporary modern total ankle arthroplasty (TAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis of indications, survivorship and complication rates. Surgeon. 2024;22(3):174-181. doi:10.1016/j.surge.2024.01.004
20.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178-189. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001
21.
KmetLLeeR. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of Fields. AHFMR HTA Initiative 20040213. HTA Initiative 2, 2004.
22.
FevangBTLieSAHavelinLIBrunJGSkredderstuenAFurnesO. 257 ankle arthroplasties performed in Norway between 1994 and 2005. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(5):575-583. doi:10.1080/17453670710014257
23.
RmQTlSRjB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes, function, and gait mechanics after fixed and mobile-bearing total ankle replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(12):987-993. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00971
24.
van EsLJMSiereveltINKerkhoffsGMMJHaverkampD. Analyzing learning curve effects: total ankle replacement design switch and long-term survival. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2024;63(5):593-597. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2024.06.002
25.
ZerahnBKofoedHBorgwardtA. Increased bone mineral density adjacent to hydroxy-apatite-coated ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(4):285-289. doi:10.1177/107110070002100403
26.
ValderrabanoVHintermannBDickW. Scandinavian total ankle replacement: a 3.7-year average followup of 65 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;424:47-56.
27.
DoetsHCBrandRNelissenRG. Total ankle arthroplasty in inflammatory joint disease with use of two mobile-bearing designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(6):1272-1284.
28.
WoodPLSuttonCMishraVSunejaR. A randomised, controlled trial of two mobile-bearing total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):69-74.
29.
DetrembleurCLeemrijseT. The effects of total ankle replacement on gait disability: analysis of energetic and mechanical variables. Gait Posture. 2009;29(2):270-274.
30.
BonninMGaudotFLaurentJREllisSColombierJAJudetT. The Salto total ankle arthroplasty: survivorship and analysis of failures at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):225-236.
31.
BrunnerSBargAKnuppM, et al. The Scandinavian total ankle replacement: long-term, eleven to fifteen-year, survivorship analysis of the prosthesis in seventy-two consecutive patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):711-718.
32.
SchimmelJJWalschotLHLouwerensJW. Comparison of the short-term results of the first and last 50 Scandinavian total ankle replacements: assessment of the learning curve in a consecutive series. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(4):326-333.
33.
NoelleSEgidyCCCrossMBGebauerMKlauserW. Complication rates after total ankle arthroplasty in one hundred consecutive prostheses. Int Orthop. 2013;37(9):1789-1794.
34.
SprouleJAChinTAminA, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the mobility total ankle arthroplasty system: early results from a prospective multicenter study. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(4):491-497.
35.
QueenRMDe BiassioJCButlerRJDeOrioJKEasleyMENunleyJA. Changes in pain, function, and gait mechanics two years following total ankle arthroplasty performed with two modern fixed-bearing prostheses. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(7):535-542. doi:10.3113/FAI.2012.0535
36.
BraitoMDammererDReinthalerAKaufmannGHuberDBiedermannR. Effect of coronal and sagittal alignment on outcome after mobile-bearing total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(9):1029-1037.
37.
FriggAGermannUHuberMHorisbergerM. Survival of the Scandinavian total ankle replacement (STAR): results of ten to nineteen years follow-up. Int Orthop. 2017;41(10):2075-2082.
38.
Di IorioAVisteAFessyMHBesseJL. The AES total ankle arthroplasty analysis of failures and survivorship at ten years. Int Orthop. 2017;41(12):2525-2533.
39.
UsuelliFGIndinoCMaccarioCManziLLiuniFMVulcanoE. Infections in primary total ankle replacement: anterior approach versus lateral transfibular approach. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(1):19-23.
40.
Johnson-LynnSERamaskandhanJSiddiqueMS. The effect of patient age and diagnosis on the 5-year outcomes of mobile-bearing total ankle replacement. Foot (Edinb). 2018;36:1-5.
41.
CloughTBodoKMajeedHDavenportJKarskiM. Survivorship and long-term outcome of a consecutive series of 200 Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR) implants. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(1):47-54.
42.
UsuelliFGPantaloneAMaccarioCGuelfiMSaliniV. Sports and recreational activities following total ankle replacement. Joints. 2017;5(1):12-16.
43.
MehdiNBernasconiALabordeJLintzF. Comparison of 25 ankle arthrodeses and 25 replacements at 67 months’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(1):139-144.
44.
LeeGWLeeKB. Does gender influence the outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty in patients with ankle osteoarthritis?J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):207.
45.
RaglanMMachinJTCroSTaylorADharS. Total ankle replacement : comparison of the outcomes of STAR and Mobility. Acta Orthop Belg. 2020;86(1):109-114.
46.
MoscaMCaravelliSVocaleE, et al. Clinical-radiological outcomes and complications after total ankle replacement through a lateral transfibular approach: a retrospective evaluation at a mid-term follow-up. Int Orthop. 2021;45(2):437-443.
47.
TadaMInuiKOkanoTKoikeT. Comparison of clinical and radiographic results of mobile-bearing total ankle arthroplasty between osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2023;33(6):1104-1109.
48.
EndstrasserFLindtnerRALandeggerA, et al. Midterm results of AAA ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2023;44(10):983-991.
49.
HiguchiYHiraoMNoguchiT, et al. Early mobilization of dorsiflexion from 3 days after cemented total ankle arthroplasty with modified antero-lateral approach. J Orthop Sci. 2024;29(3):874-879.
50.
MazzottiAArtioliEGianniniI, et al. Drain versus no drain after total ankle arthroplasty: are there any differences in complications rate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;144(3):1071-1076.
51.
ProtheroeDGadgilADaviesG. Hintegra® total ankle replacement. Five and 10 year survivorship analysis, clinical outcomes, complications and satisfaction rates. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025;64:102950.
52.
BleazeySTBrigidoSAProtzmanNM. Perioperative complications of a modular stem fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with intramedullary guidance. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(1):36-41. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2012.10.009
53.
BrigidoSAGalliMMBleazeySTProtzmanNM. Modular stem fixed-bearing total ankle replacement: prospective results of 23 consecutive cases with 3-year follow-up. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;53(6):692-699. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2014.04.001
54.
LewisJSJrGreenCLAdamsSBJrEasleyMEDeOrioJKNunleyJA. Comparison of first- and second-generation fixed-bearing total ankle arthroplasty using a modular intramedullary tibial component. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(8):881-890. doi:10.1177/1071100715576568
55.
ChaoJChoiJHGrearBJTenenbaumSBariteauJTBrodskyJW. Early radiographic and clinical results of Salto total ankle arthroplasty as a fixed-bearing device. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;21(2):91-96.
56.
NunleyJADeOrioJEasleyMStewartM. Mid-term (5–10 year) results of the Salto Talaris total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;23:53. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2017.07.245
57.
KingABaliNKassamAAHughesATalbotNSharpeI. Early outcomes and radiographic alignment of the Infinity total ankle replacement with a minimum of two year follow-up data. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(6):826-833.
58.
TownshendDNBingAJFCloughTMSharpeITGoldbergA; UK INFINITY study group. Early experience and patient-reported outcomes of 503 INFINITY total ankle arthroplasties. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(7):1270-1276.
59.
MalherbeCDeleuPADevos BevernageB, et al. Early-term results of the cadence total ankle prosthesis: an European noninventor study. Foot Ankle Int. 2023;44(1):1-12.
60.
CottomJMBadellJSWolfJ. Two-year outcomes after total ankle replacement with a novel fixed-bearing implant by a single surgeon non-inventor. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2024;63(3):337-344.
61.
AnastasioATAdamsSBDeOrioJKEasleyMENunleyJALeeDO. Comparison of radiographic talar loosening rates between Salto-Talaris and INBONE II. Foot Ankle Int. 2024;45(1):60-66.
62.
BonasiaDEDettoniFFeminoJEPhisitkulPGermanoMAmendolaA. Total ankle replacement: why, when and how?Iowa Orthop J. 2010;30:119.
63.
ShaffreyIHenryJDemetracopoulosC. An evaluation of the total ankle replacement in the modern era: a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. 2024;12(4):71. doi:10.21037/atm-23-1569
64.
AhluwaliaRSMartJ-PSGohELHayDPilkingtonIBednarczukN. The generation game: has modern contemporary Total Ankle Replacement (TAR) Improved Survivorship?Foot Ankle Orthop. 2022;7(1):2473011421S00073. doi:10.1177/2473011421S00073
65.
O’ConnorKKleinSEbelingPFlemisterASPhisitkulP; American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee. republication of “total ankle arthroplasty: summary of current status.”Foot Ankle Orthop. 2023;8(3):24730114231195063. doi:10.1177/24730114231195063
66.
KippJAVeselyBDLanceTAWhiteBNMeddaAWScottAT. Age influence on total ankle arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2024;63(6):765-768. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2024.07.013
67.
VargaCVáncsaSAgócsG, et al. Obesity and ankle prosthesis revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2023;44(12):1305-1318. doi:10.1177/10711007231201158
68.
KimBIAnastasioATWixtedCM, et al. Total ankle arthroplasty: does obesity matter. Foot Ankle Int. 2023;44(7):587-595. doi:10.1177/10711007231171084
69.
AbbottEMBhimaniRKadakiaRJBariteauJChangYH. 3D kinematics of tibiotalar motion in patients with mobile bearing and fixed bearing total ankle arthroplasty: in vivo videofluoroscopic feasibility study. Gait Posture. 2024;111:176-181. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2024.04.017
70.
CaravelliSBragonzoniLZinnoR, et al. In vivo total ankle arthroplasty kinematic evaluation: a prospective radiostereometric analysis. Biomedicines. 2024;12(4):705. doi:10.3390/biomedicines12040705
71.
DekkerTJHamidKSEasleyMEDeOrioJKNunleyJAAdamsSB. Ratio of range of motion of the ankle and surrounding joints after total ankle replacement: a radiographic cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(7):576-582. doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.00606
72.
HermusJPVoesenekJAvan GansewinkelEHEWitloxMAPoezeMArtsJJ. Complications following total ankle arthroplasty: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;28(8):1183-1193. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2022.07.004
73.
McKennaBJCookJCookEA, et al. Total ankle arthroplasty survivorship: a meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg off Publ Am Coll Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;59(5):1040-1048. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2019.10.011
74.
AssalMKutaishHAckerAHattendorfJLübbekeACrevoisierX. Three-year rates of reoperation and revision following mobile versus fixed-bearing total ankle arthroplasty: a cohort of 302 patients with 2 implants of similar design. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(22):2080-2088. doi:10.2106/JBJS.20.02172
75.
VinkMCvan SteenbergenLNde HartogBZijlstraWPvan RaaijTMPetersRM. Lower risk of revision in fixed-bearing compared to mobile-bearing total ankle arthroplasties: a register based evaluation of 1246 patients in the Netherlands. Foot Ankle Surg. 2025;31(4):352-357. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2024.12.004
76.
GagnéOJPennerMWingKVeljkovicAYoungerAS. Reoperation profile of lateral vs anterior approach ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2020;41(7):834-838. doi:10.1177/1071100720920276
77.
MercurioMCofanoEKennedyJG, et al. Indications, functional outcomes, return to sport and complications of anterior and lateral approaches for total ankle arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. Healthc Basel Switz. 2025;13(7):841. doi:10.3390/healthcare13070841
