Evaluating Component Migration After Modular Stem Fixed-Bearing Total Ankle Replacement

Abstract To date, no studies have evaluated implant migration after implantation of a modular stem fixed-bearing total ankle replacement. The purpose of the present report was to determine the inter-rater and intrarater reliability of our proposed measurement technique and to assess implant migratio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of foot and ankle surgery 2015-05, Vol.54 (3), p.326-331
Main Authors: Brigido, Stephen A., DPM, FACFAS, Wobst, Garrett M., DPM, AACFAS, Galli, Melissa M., DPM, MHA, AACFAS, Bleazey, Scott T., DPM, AACFAS, Protzman, Nicole M., MS
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ankle Joint - diagnostic imaging
ankle joint surgery
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Ankle - methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
joint prosthesis
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Osteoarthritis
Pain - physiopathology
Prosthesis Failure
Radiography
subsidence
Time Factors
total ankle replacement (TAR)
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract To date, no studies have evaluated implant migration after implantation of a modular stem fixed-bearing total ankle replacement. The purpose of the present report was to determine the inter-rater and intrarater reliability of our proposed measurement technique and to assess implant migration over time. Twenty consecutive patients (aged 59.3 ± 12.2 years) who had undergone implantation with this modern, third-generation prosthetic were included. To assess implant migration, measurements were made from non-weightbearing, postoperative radiographs immediately after surgery and again at 1 year and 2 years. Implant migration was defined as a change in implant location from the immediate postoperative radiograph. The proposed measurement technique appears to be a reliable method of assessing implant migration, evidenced by the high inter-rater reliability and intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation [2,1] 0.993 and intraclass correlation [1,1] 0.997, respectively). The mean implant migration was 0.7 mm at 1 year and 1.0 mm at 2 years. Time ( r  = 0.42) and gender ( r  = 0.31) were significant predictors of implant migration (R2  = 0.27, p  = .008). Therefore, we confirmed our hypothesis that implant migration would significantly increase over time and discovered that implant migration was greater in males (1.2 ± 1.1 mm) than females (0.1 ± 0.8 mm). Given the gross stability of the implant and lack of revision within the follow-up period, the measurements obtained could serve as clinical guidelines for acceptable implant migration in the short term. To determine the thresholds correlated with implant failure, future studies with long-term follow-up are warranted.
ISSN:1067-2516
1542-2224
DOI:10.1053/j.jfas.2014.06.028