黑料网

Total ankle arthroplasty; Ankle arthrodesis; Ankle arthritis; Comparative outcomes; Longitudinal study

Introduction

End-stage ankle arthritis poses significant challenges to patients, impairing mobility, causing debilitating pain, and impacting overall quality of life. Surgical interventions are often necessary to alleviate symptoms and restore function, with total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) and ankle arthrodesis (fusion) emerging as primary treatment options. Each procedure offers distinct advantages and considerations, prompting ongoing debate among orthopedic surgeons regarding the optimal approach for individual patients. Total ankle arthroplasty involves the replacement of the arthritic joint with a prosthetic implant, aiming to preserve ankle motion and potentially reduce stress on adjacent joints. This approach has gained popularity due to its potential to maintain or improve joint function and mobility, thereby potentially delaying the onset of adjacent joint arthritis. However, concerns exist regarding the longevity of implants and the risk of complications such as loosening, infection, and implant wear [1].

In contrast, ankle arthrodesis achieves pain relief and stability by fusing the ankle joint, eliminating joint motion. This procedure has been historically favoured for its reliable pain relief and durability, often resulting in high rates of patient satisfaction. Despite its efficacy in pain relief, ankle fusion limits ankle motion and can lead to altered gait mechanics and potential stress on adjacent joints, which may predispose to arthritis in neighbouring joints over time. The choice between TAA and ankle arthrodesis is influenced by various factors, including patient age, activity level, bone quality, and surgeon experience. While TAA aims to preserve motion and potentially provide more natural biomechanics, ankle arthrodesis is often considered a more robust solution with lower revision rates but sacrifices joint motion [2].

Given the complexity of these decisions, longitudinal studies comparing the outcomes of TAA and ankle arthrodesis are essential for guiding evidence-based practice. These studies provide critical insights into the long-term functional outcomes, complication rates, and patient satisfaction associated with each procedure. By elucidating the comparative benefits and risks of TAA versus ankle arthrodesis, orthopedic surgeons can better tailor treatment plans to individual patient needs, optimizing outcomes in the management of end-stage ankle arthritis. This longitudinal study aims to contribute to the existing literature by providing a comprehensive analysis of outcomes following TAA and ankle arthrodesis, shedding light on the evolving landscape of surgical management options for end-stage ankle arthritis.

Total ankle arthroplasty involves the replacement of the diseased ankle joint with a prosthetic implant, designed to replicate the native joint mechanics and preserve motion. This approach holds appeal for its potential to maintain or improve ankle function, restore mobility, and potentially delay the onset of adjacent joint arthritis. However, concerns exist regarding implant durability, long-term outcomes, and the risk of complications such as implant wear, loosening, and infection [3].

The choice between TAA and ankle arthrodesis is multifaceted and influenced by various patient-specific factors, including age, activity level, bone quality, and surgeon expertise. Younger, more active patients may benefit from TAA to maintain joint motion and potentially avoid the biomechanical alterations associated with fusion. Conversely, older patients or those with significant deformity, poor bone quality, or high physical demands may lean towards ankle arthrodesis for its robust pain relief and lower revision rates.

Total ankle arthroplasty involves the replacement of the damaged joint surfaces with a prosthetic implant, aiming to preserve or restore ankle motion and function while potentially reducing stress on adjacent joints. This procedure has gained favor for its ability to maintain joint mobility, improve gait mechanics, and enhance patient satisfaction by replicating natural joint movement. However, concerns regarding implant longevity, complications such as component wear or loosening and the potential need for revision surgeries over time underscore the importance of thorough patient selection and follow-up care [4].

Ankle arthrodesis, on the other hand, achieves pain relief and stability by fusing the ankle joint, thereby eliminating joint motion. This procedure has a long-standing history of success in providing durable pain relief and preventing further joint degeneration. By creating a solid bony union between the tibia and talus, ankle fusion restores joint stability and can effectively alleviate pain even in cases of severe arthritis. Despite its efficacy, ankle arthrodesis alters ankle biomechanics and may lead to changes in gait patterns and increased stress on adjacent joints, potentially predisposing them to future degenerative changes [5].

The decision-making process between TAA and ankle arthrodesis is complex and depends on various factors including patient age, activity level, severity of arthritis, bone quality, and individual treatment goals. Younger, more active patients who prioritize maintaining joint motion and preserving gait mechanics may lean towards TAA to potentially avoid the biomechanical alterations associated with fusion. Conversely, older patients or those with significant deformity, poor bone quality, or high physical demands may opt for ankle arthrodesis for its proven pain relief and lower risk of implant-related complications [6].

Discussion

The comparative outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) versus ankle arthrodesis (fusion) for end-stage ankle arthritis have been extensively debated within the orthopedic community, each offering distinct advantages and considerations based on patient-specific factors and treatment goals. This discussion synthesizes the findings from longitudinal studies and cohort analyses to assess functional outcomes, complication rates, and patient satisfaction associated with these two surgical approaches. Functional outcomes following TAA and ankle arthrodesis are critical determinants of surgical success. TAA aims to preserve or restore ankle motion, potentially improving gait mechanics and enhancing patient mobility. Studies indicate that patients undergoing TAA often report better postoperative range of motion and overall functional scores compared to that undergoing ankle fusion. The ability to maintain joint mobility may contribute to improved patient satisfaction and quality of life, particularly in younger, more active individuals who prioritize maintaining functional capacity [7].

Conversely, ankle arthrodesis reliably achieves pain relief and joint stability by eliminating joint motion through bony fusion. While fusion restricts ankle motion, it effectively alleviates pain in the majority of cases and provides durable results with high rates of union. Patients undergoing ankle fusion generally experience significant pain relief and are able to return to daily activities with improved function, albeit with altered gait mechanics and potential stress on adjacent joints. Complication rates and the need for revision surgery are important considerations in comparing TAA and ankle arthrodesis. TAA is associated with a higher risk of implant-related complications, such as loosening, subsidence, and component wear, which may necessitate revision surgery over time. Long-term studies indicate variable survivorship rates of TAA implants, with factors such as patient age, implant design, and surgeon experience influencing outcomes. In contrast, ankle fusion typically results in lower rates of revision surgery due to the solid bony union achieved during the fusion process. However, nonunion or malunion can occur in a small percentage of cases, requiring additional interventions to achieve fusion [8].

Patient-reported outcomes, including satisfaction and quality of life measures, provide valuable insights into the overall success of surgical interventions. Studies suggest that both TAA and ankle arthrodesis result in significant improvements in pain relief and patient satisfaction. TAA patients often report higher satisfaction with joint motion and function, while ankle fusion patients emphasize relief from pain and improved stability. Individual patient preferences, functional expectations, and lifestyle considerations play a crucial role in determining satisfaction with surgical outcomes [9].

The choice between TAA and ankle arthrodesis remains highly individualized and should consider patient-specific factors, such as age, activity level, comorbidities, and surgeon expertise. Younger, more active patients may benefit from TAA to preserve joint motion and maintain mobility, while older patients or those with significant deformity and lower physical demands may achieve satisfactory outcomes with ankle fusion. Continued research, including ongoing follow-up studies and advancements in implant technology, will further refine the indications and optimize outcomes for both procedures [10].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparative outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis for end-stage ankle arthritis highlight distinct benefits and considerations associated with each surgical approach. TAA offers potential advantages in terms of preserving joint motion and improving functional outcomes, albeit with higher risks of implant-related complications. Ankle arthrodesis reliably achieves pain relief and stability through joint fusion, with lower revision rates but potential limitations in joint motion. Ultimately, the choice between TAA and ankle arthrodesis should be guided by careful consideration of patient-specific factors and treatment goals to optimize outcomes and enhance patient satisfaction in the management of end-stage ankle arthritis.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Schmale GA, Conrad EU, Raskind WH (1994) J Bone Jt Surg 76: 986-992.

, ,

2. Le Merrer M, Legeai-Mallet L, Jeannin PM, Horsthemke B, Schinzel A, et al. (1994) Hum Mol Genet 3: 717–722.

, ,

3. Tomlin JL, Sturgeon C, Pead MJ, Muir P (2000) Vet Rec 147: 129-32.

, ,

4. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC (2007) J Clin Oncol 25: 1753-1759.

, ,

5. Taniguchi S, Ryu J, Seki M (2012) J Orthop Res 30: 673-678.

, ,

6. Leffler CT, Philippi AF, Leffler SG, Mosure JC, Kim PD et al. (1999) Mil Med 164: 85-91.

, ,

7. Joseph C (1910) Annals of Surgery 52: 145-185.

, ,

8. Kivioja A, Ervasti H, Kinnunen J, Kaitila I, Wolf M, et al. (2000) British Volume 82: 261-266.

, ,

9. Sinusas K (2012) .Am Fam Physician 1: 49-56.

,

10. Liu-Bryan R(2013) .Curr Rheumatol Rep15: 323-356.

, ,