Literature DB >> 19589303

Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results.

Charles L Saltzman, Roger A Mann, Jeanette E Ahrens, Annunziato Amendola, Robert B Anderson, Gregory C Berlet, James W Brodsky, Loretta B Chou, Thomas O Clanton, Jonathan T Deland, James K Deorio, Greg A Horton, Thomas H Lee, Jeffrey A Mann, James A Nunley, David B Thordarson, Arthur K Walling, Keith L Wapner, Michael J Coughlin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing ankle replacements have become popular outside of the United States over the past two decades. The goal of the present study was to perform a prospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a mobile-bearing prosthesis to treat end stage ankle arthritis. We report the results of three separate cohorts of patients: a group of Scandanavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR) patients and a control group of ankle fusion patients (the Pivotal Study Groups) and another group of STAR total ankle patients (Continued Access Group) whose surgery was performed following the completion of enrollment in the Pivotal Study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Pivotal Study design was a non-inferiority study using ankle fusion as the control. A non-randomized multi-centered design with concurrent fusion controls was used. We report the initial perioperative findings up to 24 months following surgery. For an individual patient to be considered an overall success, all of the following criteria needed to be met: a) a 40-point improvement in total Buechel-Pappas ankle score, b) no device failures, revisions, or removals, c) radiographic success, and d) no major complications. In the Pivotal Study (9/00 to 12/01), 158 ankle replacement and 66 arthrodesis procedures were performed; in the Continued Access Study (4/02 to 10/06), 448 ankle replacements were performed, of which 416 were at minimum 24 months post-surgery at time of the database closure.
RESULTS: Major complications and need for secondary surgical intervention were more common in the Pivotal Study arthroplasty group than the Pivotal Study ankle fusion group. In the Continued Access Group, secondary procedures performed on these arthroplasty patients decreased by half when compared with the Pivotal Arthroplasty Group. When the Pivotal Groups were compared, treatment efficacy was higher for the ankle replacement group due to improvement in functional scores. Pain relief was equivalent between fusion and replacement patients. The hypothesis of non-inferiority of ankle replacement was met for overall patient success.
CONCLUSION: By 24 months, ankles treated with STAR ankle replacement (in both the Pivotal and Continued Access Groups) had better function and equivalent pain relief as ankles treated with fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19589303     DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Int        ISSN: 1071-1007            Impact factor:   2.827


  47 in total

Review 1.  Total ankle replacement: why, when and how?

Authors:  Davide Edoardo Bonasia; Federico Dettoni; John E Femino; Phinit Phisitkul; Margherita Germano; Annunziato Amendola
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2010

2.  High revision and reoperation rates using the Agility™ Total Ankle System.

Authors:  Braden J Criswell; Keith Douglas; Rishi Naik; A Brian Thomson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Total ankle replacement.

Authors:  Alexej Barg; Matthias D Wimmer; Martin Wiewiorski; Dieter C Wirtz; Geert I Pagenstert; Victor Valderrabano
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 4.  [Arthrodesis and endoprostheses of the ankle joint: indications, techniques and pitfalls].

Authors:  S H Wirth; G Klammer; N Espinosa
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Radiographic evaluation of INBONE total ankle arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of 30 cases.

Authors:  Abhijit Datir; Minzhi Xing; Aparna Kakarala; Michael R Terk; Sameh A Labib
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  The bright future for total ankle replacements.

Authors:  Stephen Greenfield; Scott Ellis
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2013-12

7.  Frequency and Impact of Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Surgery for End-Stage Ankle Arthritis.

Authors:  Daniel C Norvell; Jane B Shofer; Sigvard T Hansen; James Davitt; John G Anderson; Donald Bohay; J Chris Coetzee; John Maskill; Michael Brage; Michael Houghton; William R Ledoux; Bruce J Sangeorzan
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.827

Review 8.  A systematic review of outcome and failure rate of uncemented Scandinavian total ankle replacement.

Authors:  Hongmou Zhao; Yunfeng Yang; Guangrong Yu; Jiaqian Zhou
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  [Medial pain syndrome in patients with total ankle replacement].

Authors:  A Barg; T Suter; L Zwicky; M Knupp; B Hintermann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Single-stage supramalleolar osteotomy for coronal plane deformity.

Authors:  Alexej Barg; Charles L Saltzman
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2014-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.