PURPOSE: The data currently available concerning total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) does not allow valid conclusions in several clinically relevant areas. Total ankle arthroplasty imposes special requirements on the methodology of data collection, evaluation, publication and the assessment of register data. METHODS: We undertook a structured and descriptive analysis of all outcome data available from high-quality national arthroplasty registers worldwide. Register data from Sweden, Finland, Norway, New Zealand and Australia were included in the analysis. RESULTS: There are marked differences between Europe and Oceania with respect to indications. All data sets show revision rates of approximately 10 % at five years, of which about 40 % of cases are for aseptic loosening. Inlay fractures are relatively common, which indicates potential for the improvement of implants. The documentation of intraoperative surgical errors leading to revision surgery varies significantly among registers. A relevant number of complications are treated without an implant component being exchanged and therefore not covered by a register. CONCLUSIONS: The results of TAA are promising, but the revision rate is higher than for total hip or knee arthroplasty. TAA outcome measurement by means of registers has several specific requirements necessitating additional documentation beyond the basic data set. For methodological reasons the evaluation of results is more complex than for hip or knee arthroplasty. It will therefore be essential to standardise data collection and evaluation and develop a methodology addressing the specific needs of TAA.
PURPOSE: The data currently available concerning total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) does not allow valid conclusions in several clinically relevant areas. Total ankle arthroplasty imposes special requirements on the methodology of data collection, evaluation, publication and the assessment of register data. METHODS: We undertook a structured and descriptive analysis of all outcome data available from high-quality national arthroplasty registers worldwide. Register data from Sweden, Finland, Norway, New Zealand and Australia were included in the analysis. RESULTS: There are marked differences between Europe and Oceania with respect to indications. All data sets show revision rates of approximately 10 % at five years, of which about 40 % of cases are for aseptic loosening. Inlay fractures are relatively common, which indicates potential for the improvement of implants. The documentation of intraoperative surgical errors leading to revision surgery varies significantly among registers. A relevant number of complications are treated without an implant component being exchanged and therefore not covered by a register. CONCLUSIONS: The results of TAA are promising, but the revision rate is higher than for total hip or knee arthroplasty. TAA outcome measurement by means of registers has several specific requirements necessitating additional documentation beyond the basic data set. For methodological reasons the evaluation of results is more complex than for hip or knee arthroplasty. It will therefore be essential to standardise data collection and evaluation and develop a methodology addressing the specific needs of TAA.
Authors: Stephen I Knecht; Miriam Estin; John J Callaghan; Miriam B Zimmerman; Kyle J Alliman; Frank G Alvine; Charles L Saltzman Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: C Stadler; M Stöbich; B Ruhs; C Kaufmann; L Pisecky; S Stevoska; T Gotterbarm; M C Klotz Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Matthias Braito; Dietmar Dammerer; Gerhard Kaufmann; Stefan Fischler; James Carollo; Andrea Reinthaler; Dennis Huber; Rainer Biedermann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: R Dana Carpenter; Brett S Klosterhoff; F Brennan Torstrick; Kevin T Foley; J Kenneth Burkus; Christopher S D Lee; Ken Gall; Robert E Guldberg; David L Safranski Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2018-04
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: Ilka Kamrad; Åke Carlsson; Anders Henricson; Håkan Magnusson; Magnus K Karlsson; Björn E Rosengren Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 3.717