Cargando…

Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement

CATEGORY: Ankle Arthritis; Ankle INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report on the radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes, and implant survivorship following extramedullary-referenced (EMr) versus intramedullary-referenced (IMr) total ankle replacement (TAR). METHODS: From May 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Akoh, Craig C., Fletcher, Amanda N., Kadakia, Rishin J., Chen, Jie, Park, Young-uk, Kim, Hyong Nyun, Wang, Juntao, Easley, Mark E., Nunley, James A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8704950/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00096
_version_ 1784621829422317568
author Akoh, Craig C.
Fletcher, Amanda N.
Kadakia, Rishin J.
Chen, Jie
Park, Young-uk
Kim, Hyong Nyun
Wang, Juntao
Easley, Mark E.
Nunley, James A.
author_facet Akoh, Craig C.
Fletcher, Amanda N.
Kadakia, Rishin J.
Chen, Jie
Park, Young-uk
Kim, Hyong Nyun
Wang, Juntao
Easley, Mark E.
Nunley, James A.
author_sort Akoh, Craig C.
collection PubMed
description CATEGORY: Ankle Arthritis; Ankle INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report on the radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes, and implant survivorship following extramedullary-referenced (EMr) versus 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 for primary arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, and inflammatory arthritis was enrolled in this study. Analyses were performed comparing IMr versus 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. Data was prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: 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). The absolute value for preoperative coronal alignment was significantly greater for IMr compared to EMr TAR (13.0 vs 6.4 degrees; p < 0.0001), but both groups achieved near neutral alignment postoperatively (1.4 vs 1.5 degrees; p=0.6655). 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-value <0.0001). There were similar improvements in patient-reported outcome scores at one year and final follow up (all p > 0.05). The 5-year implant survivorship was 98.6.% for IMr versus 97.5% for EMr at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: Despite the IMr TAR group having more severe preoperative coronal and sagittal malalignment, both IMr and EMr TAR components had comparable postoperative alignment, patient-reported outcome scores, and complications. Among the patients with preoperative varus, valgus, or anterior distal tibial slope, the IMr patients achieved greater correction than the EMr patients. Although the 5-year implant survivorship was similar between the two cohorts with 98.6% survival for IMr TAR and 97.5% for EMr TAR, impending failures were greater for the mobile-bearing EMr TAR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8704950
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87049502022-01-28 Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement Akoh, Craig C. Fletcher, Amanda N. Kadakia, Rishin J. Chen, Jie Park, Young-uk Kim, Hyong Nyun Wang, Juntao Easley, Mark E. Nunley, James A. Foot Ankle Orthop Article CATEGORY: Ankle Arthritis; Ankle INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report on the radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes, and implant survivorship following extramedullary-referenced (EMr) versus 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 for primary arthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, and inflammatory arthritis was enrolled in this study. Analyses were performed comparing IMr versus 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. Data was prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: 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). The absolute value for preoperative coronal alignment was significantly greater for IMr compared to EMr TAR (13.0 vs 6.4 degrees; p < 0.0001), but both groups achieved near neutral alignment postoperatively (1.4 vs 1.5 degrees; p=0.6655). 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-value <0.0001). There were similar improvements in patient-reported outcome scores at one year and final follow up (all p > 0.05). The 5-year implant survivorship was 98.6.% for IMr versus 97.5% for EMr at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: Despite the IMr TAR group having more severe preoperative coronal and sagittal malalignment, both IMr and EMr TAR components had comparable postoperative alignment, patient-reported outcome scores, and complications. Among the patients with preoperative varus, valgus, or anterior distal tibial slope, the IMr patients achieved greater correction than the EMr patients. Although the 5-year implant survivorship was similar between the two cohorts with 98.6% survival for IMr TAR and 97.5% for EMr TAR, impending failures were greater for the mobile-bearing EMr TAR. SAGE Publications 2020-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8704950/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00096 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Akoh, Craig C.
Fletcher, Amanda N.
Kadakia, Rishin J.
Chen, Jie
Park, Young-uk
Kim, Hyong Nyun
Wang, Juntao
Easley, Mark E.
Nunley, James A.
Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement
title Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement
title_full Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement
title_fullStr Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement
title_full_unstemmed Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement
title_short Was Mark Reiley Right? A Outcome Analysis of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullaryalignment Referencing for Total Ankle Replacement
title_sort was mark reiley right? a outcome analysis of intramedullary versus extramedullaryalignment referencing for total ankle replacement
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8704950/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00096
work_keys_str_mv AT akohcraigc wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT fletcheramandan wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT kadakiarishinj wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT chenjie wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT parkyounguk wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT kimhyongnyun wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT wangjuntao wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT easleymarke wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement
AT nunleyjamesa wasmarkreileyrightaoutcomeanalysisofintramedullaryversusextramedullaryalignmentreferencingfortotalanklereplacement