Intermediate-term Patient-Reported Outcomes and Radiographic Evaluation Following Intramedullary- vs Extramedullary-Referenced Total Ankle Replacement.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to report on the radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes, and implant survivorship following extramedullary-referenced (EMr) vs intramedullary-referenced (IMr) total ankle replacement (TAR). METHODS: From May 2007 to February 2018, a consecutive series of patients with end-stage tibiotalar osteoarthritis undergoing TAR was enrolled in this study. Analyses were performed comparing IMr vs EMr components for patient-reported outcomes data, pre- and postoperative radiographic ankle alignment, concomitant procedures, and complications. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses served to determine implant reoperation and revision surgery. A total of 340 TARs were included with 105 IMr TAR and 235 EMr TAR. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (±2.5, range 2-12). RESULTS: The absolute value for preoperative coronal alignment was significantly greater for IMr compared to EMr TAR (13.0 vs 6.4 degrees; P < .0001), but both groups achieved near neutral alignment postoperatively (1.4 vs 1.5 degrees; P = .6655). The odds of having a concomitant procedure was 2.7 times higher in patients with an IMr TAR (OR 2.7, CI 1.7-4.4; P < .0001). There were similar improvements in patient-reported outcome scores at 1 year and final follow-up (all P > .05). The 5-year implant survivorship was 98.6% for IMr vs 97.5% for EMr at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: The IMr and EMr TAR components had comparable postoperative alignment, patient-reported outcome scores, and complications. The 5-year implant survivorship was similar between the IMr and EMr groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Akoh, CC; Kadakia, R; Fletcher, A; Park, YU; Kim, H; Nunley, JA; Easley, ME
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)