Fate of revision total ankle arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 999 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision total ankle arthroplasty (reTAA) is becoming more common. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate its re-revision rate and factors affecting longevity. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews guideline, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2010 to 1 October 2024. Studies reporting survivorship of reTAA were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcome was the re-revision rate. Pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The annual re-revision rate was introduced for time-adjusted analysis. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The analysis included 22 retrospective studies (cohort studies and case series) and one prospective cohort study. The NOS scores indicated moderate to high quality. A total of 999 reTAAs with a mean follow-up of 5 years were identified. The pooled re-revision rate was 9.9% (95% CI: 5.9% to 13.9%). The annual re-revision rate was 2.6% (95% CI: 1.8% to 3.6%). Subgroup analysis indicated that stemmed tibial components were potentially associated with a lower re-revision rate (5.5%) versus unstemmed tibial components (13.2%) ( P = 0.077). However, meta-regression model identified follow-up duration as the only significant factor influencing re-revision rates. The pooled complication rate following reTAA was 18.2%. Among those failed reTAAs, 64.9% underwent conversion to ankle fusion and 5.3% received below-knee amputation. CONCLUSION: Although most included studies were low-level evidence, our meta-analysis revealed an overall re-revision rate of 9.9% at 5-year follow-up, with an annual rate of 2.6% for reTAA. Limited evidence suggested that revision systems using stemmed tibial components might reduce the risk of re-revision.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".