Outcomes of Total Ankle Replacement Versus Ankle Arthrodesis for the Treatment of End-Stage Ankle Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Despite the increasing utilization of total ankle replacement (TAR) for end-stage ankle arthritis, there remains a paucity of long-term follow-up data comparing arthroplasty to arthrodesis. The aim of the current paper was to provide the long-term clinical outcomes of TAR and ankle arthrodesis (AA), measured with use of validated scoring instruments, in a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with ankle arthritis. This cohort from the Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) Prospective Ankle Reconstruction Database comprised patients who underwent TAR or AA between 2001 and 2007. Data collection included demographics, comorbidities, and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale and Short Form-36 scores. A total of 211 patients were included in the present study, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years (range, 10 to 18 years) and a mean follow-up of 13.2 years. In this cohort, the baseline characteristics of those who underwent AA and those who underwent TAR differed with respect to mean age (53.8 versus 61.3 years; p < 0.001), smoking status (31% versus 50% with no smoking history; p < 0.001), and inflammatory arthritis diagnosis (2% versus 17%; p = 0.005). Patients in the AA group had a greater chance of having no further surgery following their index procedure compared with those in the TAR group (70% versus 58%; p = 0.02). The TAR and AA groups demonstrated similar functional outcomes. In conclusion, the long-term clinical outcomes of TAR and AA were similar in a diverse cohort in which the treatment was tailored to the condition of the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".