Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Outcomes of total ankle replacement for the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis continue to improve. Debate continues whether a mobile-bearing total ankle replacement (MB-TAR) or a fixed-bearing total ankle replacement (FB-TAR) is superior, with successful outcomes reported longterm for MB-TAR and at intermediate-to-longterm follow-up for newer generation FB-TAR. Although comparisons between the two total ankle designs have been reported, to our knowledge, no investigation has compared the two designs with a high level of evidence. This prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at a single institution compares patient satisfaction, functional outcomes and radiographic results of the mobile-bearing STAR and the fixed-bearing Salto-Talaris in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. Methods: This investigation was approved by our institution’s IRB committee. Between November 2011 and November 2014, adult patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis failing nonoperative treatment were introduced to the study. With informed consent, 100 patients (31 male and 69 female, average age 65, range 35 to 85) were enrolled; demographic comparison between the two cohorts was similar. Exclusion criteria included inflammatory arthropathy, neuropathy, weight exceeding 250 pounds, radiographic coronal plane deformity greater than 15 degrees or extensive talar dome wear pattern (“flat top talus”). Prospective patient-reported outcomes, physical exam and standardized weightbearing ankle radiographs were obtained preoperatively, at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, and then at yearly intervals. Data collection included visual analog pain score (VAS), short form 36 (SF-36), foot and ankle disability index (FADI), short musculoskeletal functional assessment (SMFA) and AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score. Surgeries were performed by non-design team orthopaedic foot and ankle specialists with total ankle replacement expertise. Statistically analysis was performed by a qualified statistician. Results: At average follow-up of 4.5 years (range 2-6 years) complete clinical data and radiographs were available for 84 patients; 7 had incomplete data, one had died, 4 were withdrawn after enrolling but prior to surgery and 4 were lost to follow-up. In all outcome measures, the entire cohort demonstrated statistically significant improvements from preoperative evaluation to most recent follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in improvement in clinical outcomes between the two groups. Radiographically, tibial lucency/cyst formation was 26.8% and 20.9% for MB-TAR and FB-TAR, respectively. Tibial settling/subsidence occurred in 7.3% of MB-TAR. Talar lucency/cyst formation occurred in 24.3% and 2.0% of MB-TAR and FB-TAR, respectively. Talar subsidence was observed in 21.9% and 2.0% of MB-TAR and FB-TAR, respectively. Re-operations were performed in 8 MB-TAR and 3 FB-TAR, with the majority of procedures being to relieve impingement or treat cysts and not to revise or remove metal implants. Conclusion: For the first time, with a high level of evidence, our study confirms that patient reported and clinical outcomes are favorable for both designs and that there is no significant difference in clinical improvement between the two implants. The incidence of lucency/cyst formation was similar for MB-TAR and FB-TAR for the tibial component, but the MB-TAR had greater talar lucency/cyst formation and tibial and talar subsidence. As has been suggested in previous studies, clinical outcomes do not correlate with radiographic findings. Re-operations were more common for MB-TAR and in the majority of cases were to relieve impingement or treat cysts rather than revise or remove metal implants.
Mobile bearing leads to less proximal medial tibial strain following UKA in comparison with fixed bearing in a cadaver setup