BACKGROUND: Although tibiotalar fusion has historically been considered the gold standard treatment for end-stage arthritis of the ankle, the performance of total ankle replacement appears to be gaining favor as improved outcomes have been observed with new implant designs and surgical techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare trends and demographics in the performance of ankle fusion and total ankle replacement in the United States. METHODS: The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes of patients undergoing ankle fusion and total ankle replacement were searched using the PearlDiver Patient Record Database, a national database of orthopaedic patients. The CPT codes for open ankle arthrodesis (27870), arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (29899), and total ankle replacement (27700, 27702) were searched for the years 2004 to 2009 to identify relative changes in the performance of ankle fusion and replacement over time. RESULTS: The performance of ankle fusion was unchanged during the 6-year study period. In contrast, an increase in total ankle replacement was observed, from 0.63 cases per 10 000 patients searched in 2004 to 0.99 cases per 10 000 patients in 2009 (P < .05). Both ankle fusion and total ankle replacement were performed most commonly in patients aged 60 to 69 years (P < .05). Although an even gender distribution was observed in patients undergoing total ankle replacement, open and arthroscopic fusion were more commonly performed in males (P < .05). With regard to regional distribution, open and arthroscopic fusion were most commonly performed in the western region of the United States, whereas total ankle replacement was performed most frequently in the Midwest (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the population studied, the performance of total ankle replacement increased 57% from 2004 to 2009 and was performed equally in male and female patients when compared to ankle fusion, which was more often performed in males and was unchanged with time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cross-sectional study.
BACKGROUND: Although tibiotalar fusion has historically been considered the gold standard treatment for end-stage arthritis of the ankle, the performance of total ankle replacement appears to be gaining favor as improved outcomes have been observed with new implant designs and surgical techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare trends and demographics in the performance of ankle fusion and total ankle replacement in the United States. METHODS: The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes of patients undergoing ankle fusion and total ankle replacement were searched using the PearlDiver Patient Record Database, a national database of orthopaedic patients. The CPT codes for open ankle arthrodesis (27870), arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (29899), and total ankle replacement (27700, 27702) were searched for the years 2004 to 2009 to identify relative changes in the performance of ankle fusion and replacement over time. RESULTS: The performance of ankle fusion was unchanged during the 6-year study period. In contrast, an increase in total ankle replacement was observed, from 0.63 cases per 10 000 patients searched in 2004 to 0.99 cases per 10 000 patients in 2009 (P < .05). Both ankle fusion and total ankle replacement were performed most commonly in patients aged 60 to 69 years (P < .05). Although an even gender distribution was observed in patients undergoing total ankle replacement, open and arthroscopic fusion were more commonly performed in males (P < .05). With regard to regional distribution, open and arthroscopic fusion were most commonly performed in the western region of the United States, whereas total ankle replacement was performed most frequently in the Midwest (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the population studied, the performance of total ankle replacement increased 57% from 2004 to 2009 and was performed equally in male and female patients when compared to ankle fusion, which was more often performed in males and was unchanged with time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cross-sectional study.
Authors: Jennifer A Nichols; Kenneth Bo Foreman; Alexej Barg; Charles L Saltzman; Andrew E Anderson Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Amy L Lenz; Jennifer A Nichols; Koren E Roach; K Bo Foreman; Alexej Barg; Charles L Saltzman; Andrew E Anderson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 6.558
Authors: Gabriel A Arom; Michael G Yeranosian; Frank A Petrigliano; Rodney D Terrell; David R McAllister Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Thomas A Perry; Alan Silman; David Culliford; Lucy Gates; Nigel Arden; Catherine Bowen Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-05-07 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Cort D Lawton; Bennet A Butler; Robert G Dekker; Adam Prescott; Anish R Kadakia Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Andrew J Goldberg; Razi Zaidi; Claire Thomson; Caroline J Doré; Simon S Skene; Suzie Cro; Jeff Round; Andrew Molloy; Mark Davies; Michael Karski; Louise Kim; Paul Cooke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 2.692