Open versus arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in high-risk patients: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis is known to offer high fusion rates, improvements in pain and functional outcomes, low risks of complications, and reinterventions. The aim of this study is to compare open vs. arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in patients at high risk of complications. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective comparative analysis of ankle fusions was conducted. Patient records were screened for demographics, type of arthrodesis, follow-up length, pre-operative diagnosis, risk factors for non-union, operative time, radiographic union, time to union, complications, and reinterventions. The American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale, the Italian version of the Foot Function Index (FFI), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores collected pre-operatively and in the last follow-up were used to assess clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 23 open and 21 arthroscopic ankle fusions. Union rate was higher (90.5% vs. 65.2%, p < 0.05) and complication rate was lower (14.3% vs. 47.8%, p < 0.05) in the arthroscopic group. In addition, patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrodesis reported better pain control, with higher improvements in VAS for pain scores. There was no significant difference in length of operative time, time to fusion, AOFAS, and FFI scores improvements between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis resulted in higher union rates, fewer complications, and lower reoperation rates in patients at high risk of complications.

Long-term follow-up of Bologna-Oxford (BOX) total ankle arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term results with a minimum of ten years follow-up of primary Bologna-Oxford (BOX) TAA. METHODS: Between December 2004 and December 2009, 80 patients (82 ankles) underwent a primary BOX TAA performed by a single senior surgeon, expert in foot and ankle surgery. Pain and functional outcomes were analysed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scoring system, Foot Functional Index Disability and Pain (FFI-Disability, FFI-Pain) score for comparative analysis. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (54 implants) in a cohort of 80 (82 implants) were examined at a minimum ten years follow-up. Twenty implants out of 54 underwent implant failure (37 %) and 34 patients were enrolled in the present study. The mean VAS for pain decreased significantly from 8.5 ± 1.2 to 2.9 ± 2.2 (p<0.01) and the mean AFOAS score changed from 28.6 ± 11.8 pre-operatively to 72.7 ± 16.9 (p<0.01) at last follow-up. Ninety-seven percent was satisfied with a mean FFI-Disability score that improved from 77.6 ± 19.3 to 26.7 ± 25.4 (p<0.01) and FFI-Pain score that decreased from 76.2 ± 14.2 to 31.4 ± 25.6 (p<0.01). We calculated post-operative alignment using alpha, beta and gamma angles with no difference at long-term follow-up. The survival rate of the implant was 66% at ten years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that BOX TAA is an implant with a good patient satisfaction rate at long-term follow-up; therefore, it is a valid option to increase the quality of life in subjects with end-stage osteoarthritis; however, long-term survivorship is unsatisfactory when compared to modern knee and hip implant.