Total Ankle Replacement Outcome in Patients With Inflammatory Versus Noninflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decision regarding total ankle replacement (TAR) is challenging in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) regarding more inferior bone quality, large bone cysts, and increased risk of infections. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the functional outcome, revision rate, complication rate, and survival rate of TAR between IA (including rheumatoid arthritis [RA]) and noninflammatory arthritis (NIA) (primary and posttraumatic). METHODS: After reviewing the full texts, 30 articles fulfilled all inclusion criteria from 1985 until 2021, comparing TAR results. The eligible studies included 5508 patients, of whom 1565 patients had IA and 3943 patients had NIA. At the time of surgery, the average age was 58 years in the IA group and 63 in the NIA group. The average follow-up was 67.2 months in the IA group and 67 months in the NIA group. The outcome measures were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and the rate of complications, revisions, and survival. RESULTS: The mean final AOFAS score was 82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78-86) in the IA group and 83 (95% CI: 78-88) in the NIA group, with no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the mean preoperative to postoperative AOFAS score change between the IA and the NIA. The complication rate was 16% (95% CI: 9%-27%) in the IA group and 15% (95% CI: 8%-27%) in the NIA group with no significant difference. The revision rate was 12% (95% CI: 10%-15%) in the IA group and 13% (95% CI: 10%-18%) in the NIA group, which was significant (P = .04). There was no significant difference in the survival rate between IA and NIA. CONCLUSION: Total ankle replacement is a safe procedure in inflammatory ankle arthritis, specifically in RA patients with relatively minor and major complications close to other reasons for ankle replacement. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: prognostic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".