Literature DB >> 29865886

The Infinity Total Ankle System: Early Clinical Results With 2- to 4-Year Follow-up.

Murray Penner1,2, W Hodges Davis1,2, Kevin Wing1,2, Thomas Bemenderfer1,2, Feras Waly1,2, Robert B Anderson1,2.   

Abstract

AIMS: This study presents the first report of clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Infinity Total Ankle System (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN) with minimum 2-year follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first 67 consecutive patients who underwent primary total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) with the Infinity system at 2 North American sites between August 2013 and May 2015 were reviewed in a prospective, observational study. Demographic, radiographic, and functional outcome data were collected preoperatively, at 6 to 12 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: The overall implant survival rate was 97% (65 of 67 implants) at a mean follow-up of 35.4 months (27 to 47 months). Two cases underwent talar component revision for aseptic loosening. Six of the 67 cases (9%) required a nonrevision reoperation. Mean Foot Function Index and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale scores at latest follow-up improved from preoperative by 21.6 ( P < .0001) and 34.0 ( P < .0001), respectively. No radiographic loosening of any talar or tibial components was identified in the 65 nonrevised cases.
CONCLUSION: Early clinical and radiographic outcomes with the Infinity TAA are promising and compare favorably to those reported for both fixed- and mobile-bearing third-generation TAA designs, even when used in cases with deformity and increased case complexity. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arthritis and joint disease; complex foot and ankle conditions; implant arthroplasty; implants; joint replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29865886      PMCID: PMC6507063          DOI: 10.1177/1938640018777601

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Spec        ISSN: 1938-6400


“The majority of TAA [total ankle arthroplasty] implants used in the United States incorporate a 2-component, fixed-bearing design.” The use of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis (ESAA) is increasing in the United States[1,2] and the United Kingdom.[3] This trend correlates with the emergence of data that demonstrate that TAA leads to significant improvements in function and pain relief[4] and, in comparison to ankle arthrodesis, is better at meeting patient expectations,[5] results in biomechanical function and gait that more closely resemble normal,[6,7] and potentially may reduce the risk of adjacent hindfoot joint degeneration.[8] The majority of TAA implants used in the United States incorporate a 2-component, fixed-bearing design.[9] The use of 2-component designs outside of the United States has begun to increase,[3] with data showing equivalent or improved results as compared to 3-component mobile bearing designs.[10,11] The increasing interest in 2-component designs and the increased use of TAA overall has led to the development of a new generation of 2-component TAA implants. The Infinity Total Ankle System (Wright Medical, Memphis, Tennessee) was first implanted in the United States in 2013, with general availability beginning in mid-2014. The design rationale and technique for this TAA system have been described[12] along with a radiographic analysis at minimum 3-month follow-up for a small case series.[13] However, despite now being the most commonly used TAA in the United Kingdom,[3] there have been no published clinical outcome studies for the Infinity Total Ankle System to date. This study presents the first report on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 67 patients who underwent TAA with the Infinity Total Ankle System with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

Patients and Methods

Study Population

A prospective, observational study was performed to assess all consecutive patients who underwent primary TAA with the Infinity Total Ankle System at 2 large subspecialty foot and ankle training sites in North America. The first cases at both Site A and Site B were performed in August 2013. All subsequent, consecutive cases performed prior to June 2015 at both sites were included in the study. All cases had a minimum 2-year follow-up. No cases were excluded. All study patients had a diagnosis of ESAA, were 30 years of age or older, could provide informed consent, and were deemed appropriate for a low-profile, primary TAA based on surgeon assessment. Patients undergoing primary TAA with severe deformity (talar tilt greater than 20°) or insufficient bone stock (as judged by the treating surgeon), or patients undergoing revision TAA were managed with a stemmed TAA device and were not included in this study. This study was approved by each institution’s research ethics board.

Surgical Technique

The operative technique utilized standard instrumentation as previously described[12] until computed tomography (CT) scan-derived, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI; Prophecy, Wright Medical Technology, Memphis, TN) became available in 2014. Thereafter, PSI was used for all cases, apart from 2 cases in which insurance approval for PSI could not be obtained. The standard PSI operative technique was utilized, and this has been described elsewhere.[13] Cement fixation was used in one case due to poor-quality bone stock. Additional procedures were performed as required to achieve a stable ankle joint and plantigrade foot. All procedures were performed by orthopaedic surgeons with subspecialty foot and ankle fellowship training.

Data Collection

All data were collected and recorded prospectively. Patient demographics, comorbidities, ESAA etiology, and Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) preoperative arthritis type[14] were collected preoperatively. Operative details including implant size and additional procedures performed were collected at the time of surgery. Clinical outcome was assessed with patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, including the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS),[15] the Foot Function Index (FFI),[16] and the Short Form (SF)-36 Standard Version 2.0 Health Survey Physical Component Summary (PCS).[17] At Site A, the AOS, FFI, and SF-36 PCS were collected preoperatively and at 6 to 12 months postoperatively, and then annually thereafter. At Site B, clinical outcomes were collected postoperatively, at 6 to 12 months, and then annually utilizing only the FFI. Reoperation and revision data were collected prospectively using the COFAS Reoperations Coding System.[18] Standing ankle radiographs were obtained preoperatively and at 2 postoperative time points: early (less than 12 months) and late (greater than 24 months). Radiographs were reviewed by 2 independent observers utilizing previously published measurement techniques.[19-22] Radiographic loosening was identified using the criteria of Hintermann et al.[23]

Statistical Analysis

The changes in AOS, FFI, and radiographic parameters between preoperative and latest follow-up were evaluated with an unpaired Student’s t test. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Study Population Demographics and Characteristics

Between August 2013 and May 2015, 67 ankles in 67 patients underwent TAA with the Infinity Total Ankle System. The study population characteristics are shown in Table 1. One patient died at 20 months postoperatively due to causes unrelated to the TAA and is included only in early postoperative outcomes.
Table 1.

Patient Preoperative Demographics and Characteristics.

Total cohort, number (%)67 (100%)
 Site A26 (39%)
 Site B41 (61%)
Follow-up period (months)[a]35.4 (27-47)
Age at surgery (years)[a]61.5 (32-85)
Gender, number (%)
 Male37 (55%)
 Female30 (45%)
Height (cm)[a]172 (133-193)
Weight (kg)[a]88.1 (52.1-146.5)
BMI[a]29.8 (19.1-48.9)
Diabetes, number (%)4 (6%)
Smoker, number (%)5 (7%)
Workers compensation claim, number (%)4 (6%)
Arthritis etiology, number (%)
 Posttraumatic47 (70%)
 Inflammatory4 (6%)
 Primary11 (16%)
 Secondary5 (8%)
COFAS classification of end-stage arthritis[14], number (%)
 Type 1 (no deformity)15 (22%)
 Type 2 (intraarticular deformity)6 (9%)
 Type 3 (extraarticular deformity)2 (3%)
 Type 4 (preexisting hindfoot arthritis or fusion)41 (61%)
 Type 5 (takedown ankle fusion)3 (5%)
Clinical hindfoot alignment
 Valgus <10°43 (64%)
 Valgus 10° to 20°13 (20%)
 Valgus >20°1 (1%)
 Varus <10°8 (12%)
 Varus 10° to 20°2 (3%)

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; COFAS, Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society.

Data are expressed as mean value and the range.

Patient Preoperative Demographics and Characteristics. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; COFAS, Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Data are expressed as mean value and the range.

Operative Details

The first 6 cases and 2 later cases at Site A and the first 8 cases at Site B were performed with the standard instrumentation. The remaining 51 (76%) cases were performed with PSI. Twenty cases (30%) had no additional procedures. In the remaining 47 cases (70%), 75 additional procedures were performed. Of the 47 cases with additional procedures, 24 cases had only isolated Achilles lengthening (gastrocnemius in 18 cases; tendon in 6 cases) although 7 of these 24 cases also underwent removal of hardware. The 23 (34%) remaining cases underwent a total of 44 more extensive additional procedures, as outlined in Table 2. The COFAS Postoperative Ankle Arthritis Classification was used to categorize the total procedure complexity.[24] There were 22 Type 1 cases (no concurrent procedures other than hardware removal), 27 Type 2 cases (concurrent soft-tissue procedure(s) requiring a second incision, such as Achilles lengthening, lateral ligament reconstruction), 8 Type 3 cases (concurrent or staged midfoot arthrodesis or osteotomies of fibular, calcaneus, tibia, or midfoot), 7 Type 4 cases (concurrent or staged hindfoot arthrodesis, such as subtalar, talonavicular, triple, or calcaneocuboid), and 3 Type 5 takedowns of ankle fusion.
Table 2.

Concurrent Procedures (Total Cohort, N = 67).

Number of patients with additional procedures47 (70%)
Proceduren
Hardware removal12
Gastrocnemius lengthening23
Achilles lengthening10
Deltoid ligament release2
Lateral ligament reconstruction4
Malleolar osteotomy (medial or lateral)7
Tibial osteotomy1
Calcaneal osteotomy2
Metatarsal osteotomy2
Subtalar fusion4
Talonavicular fusion2
Midtarsal fusion2
Tarsometatarsal fusion3
Lateral malleolar intraoperative fracture fixation1
Total75
Concurrent Procedures (Total Cohort, N = 67). An Infinity tibial component was used in all cases, while an Infinity talar component was used in 59 cases (Figure 1). An InBone II (Wright Medical, Memphis, Tennessee) talar component, a stemmed flat-cut design that is an optional component in the Infinity Total Ankle System, was used in 8 cases to manage a flat top talus (Figure 2).
Figure 1.

Preoperative AP (a) and lateral (b) radiographs demonstrate a well-aligned ankle with end-stage arthritis. AP (c) and lateral (d) radiographs at 2 years postoperative demonstrating Infinity tibial and talar components with no complications.

Figure 2.

Preoperative AP (a) and lateral (b) radiographs demonstrate end-stage ankle arthritis with 14° valgus talar tilt and a flat top talus. Postoperative AP (c) and lateral (d) radiographs demonstrate insertion of an Infinity tibial component and InBone II talar component with correction to neutral talar tilt.

Preoperative AP (a) and lateral (b) radiographs demonstrate a well-aligned ankle with end-stage arthritis. AP (c) and lateral (d) radiographs at 2 years postoperative demonstrating Infinity tibial and talar components with no complications. Preoperative AP (a) and lateral (b) radiographs demonstrate end-stage ankle arthritis with 14° valgus talar tilt and a flat top talus. Postoperative AP (c) and lateral (d) radiographs demonstrate insertion of an Infinity tibial component and InBone II talar component with correction to neutral talar tilt.

Reoperations and Revision

Reoperations are summarized in Table 3. Revision of metal components was performed for aseptic loosening and persistent pain in 2 cases (3%). The first case showed subtle lucency at the posterior aspect of the talar component only on CT scan, but no change in component position. Talar component loosening was identified intraoperatively, though the tibial component remained well fixed. Isolated talar component revision with an InBone II talar component was performed at 24 months postoperatively.
Table 3.

COFAS Reoperation and Revision Coding[18].

Total cohort (number)67
Cases with no reoperations, number (%)59 (88%)
Cases with reoperation, number (%)6 (9%)
Cases with revision, number (%)2 (3%)
Reoperations by type
 Type 2—Hardware removal1 (1%)
 Type 3—Unplanned procedures related to the TAA2 (3%)
 Type 4—Debridement of gutters or heterotopic ossification2 (3%)
 Type 5—Exchange of polyethylene bearing0 (0%)
 Type 6—Debridement of osteolytic cysts0 (0%)
 Type 7—Deep infection requiring debridement, no metal component removal1 (1%)
 Type 9—Revision of metal components for aseptic loosening, fracture or malposition2 (3%)
 Type 10—Revision of metal components secondary to infection0 (0%)
 Type 11—Amputation above the level of the ankle0 (0%)

Abbreviations: COFAS, Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society; TAA, total ankle arthroplasty.

COFAS Reoperation and Revision Coding[18]. Abbreviations: COFAS, Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society; TAA, total ankle arthroplasty. In the second case, the tibial component was seen to subside into dorsiflexion by 7° on radiographs, and CT scan demonstrated subtle osteolysis adjacent to both the talar and tibial components. Intraoperatively both the talar and tibial components were found to be loose and were revised with InBone II tibial and talar components at 22 months postoperatively. Reoperation for gutter debridement was performed in 2 cases at 17 and 19 months postoperatively for persistent pain and radiographic evidence of mild bony hypertrophy in the medial gutter.

Clinical Outcome Measures

The AOS, FFI, and SF-36 PCS early and late postoperative scores all showed significant improvement compared to the preoperative scores (Table 4). The FFI score improved from early- to late-postoperative follow-up by 8.7 (P = .027).
Table 4.

Clinical Outcome Data.

Mean ScoreRangeN95% CIP Value[a] (vs Preoperative)Mean FU (Months)FU Range (Months)
FFI score
 Preoperative[b]43.45-93239.7
 Earliest postoperative30.50-78545.2.0145.22-13
 2 Year postoperative21.81-64425.3<.000129.720-47
 AOS score[c]
Preoperative[b]59.18-88237.8
 Earliest postoperative28.23-851710.3<.00019.35-13
 2-Year postoperative24.43-74159.6<.000124.824-27
 SF-36 PCS Score[c]
Preoperative[b]33.710.6234.3
 Earliest postoperative42.018-57175.3.0229.45-13
 2-Year postoperative45.931-57154.4.000624.824-27

Abbreviations: FU, follow-up; CI, confidence interval; N, number of scores collected; FFI, Foot Function Index; AOS, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale; SF-36 PCS, Short Form (SF)-36 Standard Version 2.0 Health Survey Physical Component Summary.

Student’s t test, 2-tailed, unequal variance.

Only Site A collected preoperative FFI data.

Only Site A collected AOS and SF-36 PCS data.

Clinical Outcome Data. Abbreviations: FU, follow-up; CI, confidence interval; N, number of scores collected; FFI, Foot Function Index; AOS, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale; SF-36 PCS, Short Form (SF)-36 Standard Version 2.0 Health Survey Physical Component Summary. Student’s t test, 2-tailed, unequal variance. Only Site A collected preoperative FFI data. Only Site A collected AOS and SF-36 PCS data.

Radiographic Outcomes

Preoperative radiographs and early postoperative radiographs (mean 6 months postoperative, SD = 5.8, range 2-11) were available for all 67 cases, while subsequent late postoperative radiographs (mean 29.4 months, SD = 8.2, range 13-47) were available for 46 cases. Preoperative radiographs showed talar tilt of 20° varus to 14° valgus and tibial plafond angles ranging from 13° varus to 17° valgus. Utilizing the radiograph-based criteria of Hintermann et al (tibial component loosening: greater than 2° or 2-mm change in position; talar component loosening: greater than 5° or 5-mm change in position),[23] no radiographic loosening of any talar or tibial components was identified, apart from the case that underwent revision of both metal components.

Discussion

Historically, the primary concerns with TAA were high early rates of revision and reoperation. As a result, gaining an early understanding of these outcomes is paramount in the assessment of any new TAA design. Short-term (less than 4 years of follow-up) revision rates of 4% to 15% for current third-generation implants[23,25-28] set the minimal goal for any new fourth-generation TAA system. In view of this, the revision rate of 3% (2 cases) at 27 to 47 months in this study is encouraging. In the first revision case, malposition of the talar component in excessive plantarflexion may have contributed to early loosening. To address this, we began taking an intraoperative fluoroscopic image just prior to making the initial talar resection to confirm good positioning of the resection guide. In the second case where revision of both the talar and tibial components was performed, no initial malalignment was present. Both cases were revised with good outcomes. This study identified a 9% rate of nonrevision reoperation. In comparison to the rates of 12% to 20% seen in the early experience with some other systems[25,29] and for TAA in general,[18] these results are encouraging. Some of the high rates of failure seen with early TAA designs were attributed to a steep learning curve.[30] In view of this, a goal for any new TAA design should be to incorporate techniques and instruments that aim to reduce the learning curve and enhance ease of use, as third-generation designs may have done over prior designs.[31] The low revision and reoperation rates seen in this study suggest this may be a possibility, potentially due to the use of CT scan–derived PSI in 76% of these cases, since such instrumentation has been shown to have high rates of accuracy and time efficiency.[13,32,33] Indeed, only 1 revision case and 4 cases with nonrevision reoperations occurred in the 51 cases with PSI. Nevertheless, even in the 16 cases with standard instrumentation, which represent the earliest part of the learning curve as well as the cases with the longest follow-up, only 1 case went on to revision and 2 to nonrevision reoperations. This suggests PSI is not the only factor contributing to the low failure rate and minimization of learning curve effects seen in this study. Determining the efficacy of a new TAA design in achieving a patient’s desired outcomes of reduced pain and increased function is equally important as implant durability. In this study, the mean PRO scores (AOS, FFI, SF-36 PCS) improved postoperatively, and the mean AOS score at latest follow-up of 25.1 compares favorably to the mean score of 26.4 published in a large prospective, multicenter study of 281 TAA cases utilizing a variety of TAA systems.[4] These findings offer some early reassurance that the Infinity Total Ankle System may offer not only reasonable durability but also reasonable efficacy in the treatment of ESAA. The etiology of ESAA in this study was seen to be comparable to that commonly reported, with 70% posttraumatic arthritis in origin.[34] However, the 61% rate of COFAS Type 4 and 4% rate of COFAS Type 5 cases are relatively high[14] and, coupled with a wide range of preoperative coronal plane deformities, suggest the study cohort was composed of a moderately complex case mix. This degree of deformity and complexity likely contributed to the somewhat high rate (51 of 67 cases; 76%) of concomitant procedures seen in this series.[5,35] The ability to utilize the Infinity prosthesis in cases of this complexity during our initial experience with the system while achieving the low rate of revision and reoperation identified is encouraging. One of the strengths of this study stems from the relatively long follow-up period (mean 35.4 months) for the initial presentation of results of a new design as compared to the minimum follow-up periods of 6 or 12 months reported in other initial series.[29,36] Overall, however, the results are short term, thereby limiting the strength of the study. An additional strength is the relatively large study cohort of 67 cases in comparison to many other initial device reports.[29,37-40] The study is limited by the availability of preoperative PRO scores in only 39% of the cases. In addition, objective range-of-motion data were not available, nor objective physical ability measures (eg, gait analysis). Future studies will need to include these parameters. This study also has a limited range of radiographic outcomes, although this will be addressed in future work that is already underway to couple CT scan and radiographic findings for this cohort. Last, 3 of the authors are co-inventors of the Infinity Total Ankle System (Wright Medical, Memphis, Tennessee), potentially contributing to bias and reduced generalizability of the results due to a greater familiarity with the system than standard users may have during their early experience with the system. In conclusion, early clinical and radiographic outcomes for the Infinity Total Ankle System appear promising and compare favorably to early outcomes reported for both fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing third-generation TAA designs, even when used in cases with deformity and increased case complexity. Further future study with larger cohorts, longer-term outcomes, and more detailed radiographic and functional data are needed.
  38 in total

1.  Total ankle replacement. The results in 200 ankles.

Authors:  P L R Wood; S Deakin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-04

2.  The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability.

Authors:  E Budiman-Mak; K J Conrad; K E Roach
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Total ankle replacement compatible with ligament function produces mobility, good clinical scores, and low complication rates: an early clinical assessment.

Authors:  Sandro Giannini; Matteo Romagnoli; John J O'Connor; Francesco Malerba; Alberto Leardini
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the COFAS end-stage ankle arthritis classification system.

Authors:  Fabian G Krause; Matthew Di Silvestro; Murray J Penner; Kevin J Wing; Mark A Glazebrook; Timothy R Daniels; Johnny T C Lau; Keith Stothers; Alastair S E Younger
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.827

5.  The HINTEGRA ankle: rationale and short-term results of 122 consecutive ankles.

Authors:  Beat Hintermann; Victor Valderrabano; Greta Dereymaeker; Walter Dick
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Scandinavian total ankle replacement: a 3.7-year average followup of 65 patients.

Authors:  Victor Valderrabano; Beat Hintermann; Walter Dick
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.

Authors:  J E Brazier; R Harper; N M Jones; A O'Cathain; K J Thomas; T Usherwood; L Westlake
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-07-18

8.  Perioperative complications of total ankle arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mark S Myerson; Kenneth Mroczek
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.827

9.  Gait analysis and functional outcomes following ankle arthrodesis for isolated ankle arthritis.

Authors:  Rhys Thomas; Tim R Daniels; Kim Parker
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Etiology of ankle osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Victor Valderrabano; Monika Horisberger; Iain Russell; Hugh Dougall; Beat Hintermann
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Preoperative Guidance With Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography and Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Foot and Ankle Surgery.

Authors:  Jacob Zeitlin; Jensen Henry; Scott Ellis
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-07-07

2.  Ankle Distraction Arthroplasty for Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Survival Analysis.

Authors:  Stephen Greenfield; Kelsey M Matta; Thomas H McCoy; S Robert Rozbruch; Austin Fragomen
Journal:  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr       Date:  2019 May-Aug

3.  Infinity ankle arthroplasty with traditional instrumentation and PSI prophecy system: preliminary results.

Authors:  Piero Giardini; Paolo Di Benedetto; Domenico Mercurio; Renato Gisonni; Marco Molinari; Araldo Causero; Fabrizio Cortese
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-12-30

Review 4.  Ankle Arthritis.

Authors:  Vu Le; Andrea Veljkovic; Peter Salat; Kevin Wing; Murray Penner; Alastair Younger
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2019-07-19

5.  Outcomes of trabecular metal total ankle replacement: a longitudinal observational cohort study of 239 consecutive cases from the Swedish Ankle Registry.

Authors:  Anders Henricson; Alexandra Undén; Åke Carlsson; Lars Jehpsson; Björn Rosengren
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 3.925

6.  Adverse events related to total ankle replacement devices: an analysis of reports to the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Karim Mahmoud; Sreenivasulu Metikala; Kathryn M O'Connor; Daniel C Farber
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.075

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.