Outcomes of Total Ankle Replacement, Arthroscopic Ankle Arthrodesis, and Open Ankle Arthrodesis for Isolated Non-Deformed End-Stage Ankle Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End-stage ankle arthritis is a disabling condition that has a similar effect on morbidity, pain, and loss of function to hip arthritis. We compared clinical outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR) involving the HINTEGRA prosthesis (Integra LifeSciences), arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (AAA), and open ankle arthrodesis (OAA) in patients with isolated, non-deformed end-stage ankle arthritis. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old who underwent TAR, AAA, or OAA from 2002 to 2012 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were retrospectively identified from the Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) Prospective Ankle Reconstruction Database. All patients had symptomatic COFAS Type-1 end-stage ankle arthritis without intra-articular or extra-articular deformity or surrounding joint arthritis. Clinical outcomes included the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Revision was defined as removal of 1 or both metal ankle prosthesis components for TAR and as reoperation for malposition, malunion, or nonunion for AAA and OAA. RESULTS: Analysis included 238 ankles (88 TAR, 50 AAA, and 100 OAA) in 229 patients with a mean follow-up of 43.3 ± 18.5 months. The TAR group had more female patients (55%; p = 0.0318) and a higher mean age (p = 0.0005). Preoperative AOS pain, disability, and total scores were similar for all groups. SF-36 physical and mental component summary scores were similar across groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Improvement in AOS total score was significantly larger for TAR (34.4 ± 22.6) and AAA (38.3 ± 23.6) compared with OAA (25.8 ± 25.5; p = 0.005). Improvement in AOS disability score was also significantly larger for TAR (36.7 ± 24.3) and AAA (40.5 ± 26.4) compared with OAA (26.0 ± 26.2; p = 0.0013). However, the greater improvements did not meet the minimal clinically important difference. The TAR group underwent more reoperations than AAA and OAA groups (p < 0.0001). Revision rates were similar for all 3 groups (p = 0.262). CONCLUSIONS: AAA and OAA resulted in comparable clinical outcomes to TAR in patients with non-deformed, COFAS Type-1 end-stage ankle arthritis. The rate of component revision in patients who underwent TAR was similar to the rate of revision for patients who underwent AAA or OAA; however, TAR patients underwent a greater number of additional procedures. Overall, AAA and TAR involving the HINTEGRA prosthesis were not significantly different surgical options in terms of short-term outcomes; patients should be counseled regarding higher reoperation rates for TAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".