Living With Both a Total Ankle Replacement and an Ankle Fusion: A Qualitative Study From the Patients’ Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion are effective treatments for end-stage ankle arthritis. Comparative studies elucidate differences in treatment outcomes; however, the literature lacks evidence demonstrating what outcomes are important to patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients' experiences of living with both a TAR and ankle fusion. METHODS: This research study used qualitative description. Individuals were selected from a cohort of patients with TAR and/or ankle fusion (n = 1254). Eligible patients were English speaking with a TAR and contralateral ankle fusion, and a minimum of 1 year since their most recent ankle reconstruction. Surgeries were performed by a single experienced surgeon, and semistructured interviews were conducted by a single researcher in a private hospital setting or by telephone. Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) scores, radiographs, and ancillary surgical procedures were collected to characterize patients. Themes were derived through qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Ten adults (8 men, 2 women), ages 59 to 90 years, were included. Average AOS pain and disability scores were similar for both surgeries for most patients. Participants discussed perceptions of each reconstructed ankle. Ankle fusions were considered stable and strong, but also stiff and compromising balance. TARs were considered flexible and more like a "normal ankle," though patients expressed concerns about their TAR "turning" on uneven ground. Individuals applied this knowledge to facilitate movement, particularly during a first step and transitioning between positions. They described the need for careful foot placement and attention to the environment to avoid potential challenges. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the experiences of individuals living with a TAR and ankle fusion. In this unusual but limited group of patients, we found that each ankle reconstruction was generally perceived to have different characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Most participants articulated a preference for their TAR. These findings can help clinicians better counsel patients on expectations after TAR and ankle fusion, and improve patient-reported outcome measures by better capturing meaningful outcomes for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».