This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the exam for this article: CME 2: April, May, June 2008 (publication date July 3, 2008; expiration dat... [Supplementary Material] Letters to the Editor: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Easley, M. E. Articles by Nunley, J. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Easley, M. E. Articles by Nunley, J. A., II Related Collections Foot/Ankle Social Bookmarking             What's this?

Revision Tibiotalar Arthrodesis

¹ Duke Health Center, 3116 North Duke Street, Room 243, Durham, NC 27704. E-mail address for M. Easley: easle004{at}mc.duke.edu
² Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Box 2911, Durham, NC 27710
³ Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Box 2923, Durham, NC 27710
Investigation performed at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients underwent revision tibiotalar arthrodesis with use of repeat internal fixation (eleven patients), ring external fixation (twenty-two patients), or tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis (twelve patients). Union rates were assessed radiographically, and functional outcome was determined with use of preoperative and postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot scores.

Results: All forty-five patients were available for follow-up at an average of 50.3 months. The average ankle-hindfoot score improved from 31.1 points preoperatively to 65.8 points at the time of the most recent follow-up. At the time of the most recent follow-up, the union rate was 88.9% (forty of forty-five). Fusion was achieved with revision tibiotalar arthrodesis in thirty-six (80%) of forty-five patients, including eight of the eleven patients in the repeat internal fixation group, nineteen of the twenty-two patients in the ring external fixation group, and nine of the twelve patients in the tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis group. Re-revision led to union in four of five patients. The overall union rate for ring external fixation, including revision and re-revision tibiotalar arthrodeses, was 84.6% (twenty-two of twenty-six). The five patients with persistent nonunion following revision ankle arthrodesis opted for transtibial amputation.

Conclusions: Revision tibiotalar arthrodesis leads to satisfactory limb salvage in a majority of patients. Ring external fixation may facilitate clinically acceptable limb salvage in complex cases when methods of internal fixation are limited or even contraindicated.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Technorati    What's this?

Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press (TM) assists in the publication of JBJS Online.
Copyright © 2008 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. Online ISSN: 1535-1386.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery®, JBJS®, JB&JS®, and eJBJS® are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.