Adjacent Joint Preservation vs Fusion In Patients With Ipsilateral Hindfoot and Ankle Arthritis (COFAS Type 4) Undergoing Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Prospectively-Collected Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Category: Ankle Arthritis, Hindfoot Introduction/Purpose: Adjacent subtalar (STJ) or talonavicular (TNJ) joint arthritis poses a dilemma in end stage ankle arthritis. The Canadian Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (COFAS) Classification defines such cases as Type 4. In these cases, undergoing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), fusion of the STJ and/or TNJ or preservation of these joints are both options. Joint preservation may reduce operative time and potential complications but has potential for ongoing hindfoot pain reflected in outcome scores. Hindfoot fusion may offer the potential of greater pain relief, but at the risk of increased OR time and complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing TAA with or without STJ and/or TNJ fusion in COFAS type 4 cases. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively-collected multi-center data on 148 ankles with COFAS Type 4 arthritis that underwent TAA by 7 different surgeons and analyzed the trend of their Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) and SF36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores pre-operatively and at 1, 2 and 3-5 years post-operatively. Scores were compared between those who underwent fusion of the STJ and/or TNJ (Fusion Group [FG], n=89) and those who did not (Preservation Group [PG], n=59). Multivariant analyses were also performed to account for potential demographic differences within the patient cohorts. The primary outcome measure was the AOS score at latest follow-up (LFU). Secondary outcomes included the SF36 PCS score, COFAS Reoperation Coding System (CRoCS) rates and survivorship. Results: Mean follow up was 6.9 years. Mean pre-operative AOS scores for FG and PG were similar (55.9 and 57.5, respectively, p=0.56). Mean AOS scores at LFU for both groups were insignificantly different (FG – 24.6; PG – 25.2; p=0.89). SF36 PCS scores improved (32.9 pre-operatively to 42.2) at LFU for FG, (33.9 to 40.0) for PG; differences pre-operatively and at LFU were insignificant (p=0.51, p=0.26, respectively). Both groups achieved best mean scores 2 years post-operatively. Multivariant analyses controlling for demographics, comorbidities, surgeon, TAA implant type, and pre-operative score showed no significant difference in mean AOS scores at LFU between both Groups. Reoperations in PG included 2 Code3 procedures (hindfoot fusion) and 2 Code9 procedures (revision of metal components). FG had no Code3 or Code9 procedures. Conclusion: In COFAS Type 4 ankle arthritis cases with adjacent hindfoot arthritis undergoing TAA, our data suggests preservation of hindfoot joints yields similar outcomes to fusion of the hindfoot while potentially avoiding greater operative time, immobilization period, and additional wound/hardware risks associated with concomitant hindfoot fusion. However, preservation carries risk of requiring future reoperation for hindfoot fusion, as seen in 3% of our cases, though this may be countered by the risk of nonunion requiring reoperation when hindfoot fusion is performed primarily. Our results suggest that deferral of hindfoot fusion is a reasonable option in COFAS Type 4 ankles undergoing TAA.
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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».