0
Commentary and Perspective   |    
Moving on with the DistractionCommentary on an article by Charles L. Saltzman, MD, et al.: “Motion Versus Fixed Distraction of the Joint in the Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis. A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial”
Thomas G. Harris, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

The author did not receive payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. The author, or his institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The author has not had any other relationships, or engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.


Copyright © 2012 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2012 Jun 06;94(11):e79 1-1. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00301
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
The surgical treatment of severe ankle arthritis continues to be challenging and somewhat controversial. Although ankle arthrodesis is thought to be the “gold standard,” this procedure definitely carries with it the risk of hindfoot arthroses on radiographs with the passage of time1. Interest in ankle replacement has increased in recent years, but studies have shown a relatively high rate of revision arthroplasty at the time of early follow-up2.
The surgical treatment of degenerative joint disease of the ankle becomes even more taxing for younger patients. The risk of adjacent-joint arthritis will definitely increase with the passage of time after a tibiotalar arthrodesis. Similarly, the risk of requiring a repeat surgical procedure will increase when an ankle replacement is implanted into a younger patient. Thus, clinicians continue to search for other “joint-sparing” surgical modalities to help to effectively treat ankle arthritis, such as realignment osteotomies, allograft ankle reconstructions, and distraction arthroplasty.
The article by Dr. Saltzman et al. is a welcome and important contribution to the literature. It meets the rigid criteria for a prospective, randomized trial, and the authors should be congratulated for their diligence. Their inclusion criterion of selecting patients under the age of sixty years is also important as most clinicians would perform either an ankle arthrodesis or a total ankle replacement in patients with severe ankle arthritis over the age of sixty years. This report also serves to validate many of the European studies on the efficacy of distraction arthroplasty and shows the importance of motion when this technique is used3.
One of the concerns about this study, duly acknowledged by the authors, is the relatively “short” follow-up of two years for this patient population. This procedure is not for patients (or clinicians) who are looking for a simple and fast solution. This type of surgical treatment requires a substantial commitment on the part of both the patient and the clinician. In fact, patients in this study had the external fixator in place for approximately three months and did not progress toward full weight-bearing without support until six months. Therefore, it would be very interesting to see if these results continue to improve with time, say, at five or ten years, or begin to wane. With that important information, it would be easier for patients to make the decision to proceed with the lengthy treatment protocol associated with distraction arthroplasty. Also, although outcome information is the priority in this article, the mechanism by which distraction arthroplasty actually works is still largely conjectural4.
Nevertheless, this article does provide important information and support for distraction ankle arthroplasty. It also serves to cultivate interest in joint-sparing procedures for ankle arthritis. Hopefully, further studies with longer follow-up will show us how distraction arthroplasty with motion can truly “buy us time” in the treatment of our younger patients who have severe ankle arthritis.
Coester  LM;  Saltzman  CL;  Leupold  J;  Pontarelli  W. Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2001  Feb;83(  2):219-28.
 
SooHoo  NF;  Zingmond  DS;  Ko  CY. Comparison of reoperation rates following ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2007  Oct;89(  10):2143-9.
 
Marijnissen  AC;  Van Roermund  PM;  Van Melkebeek  J;  Schenk  W;  Verbout  AJ;  Bijlsma  JW;  Lafeber  FP. Clinical benefit of joint distraction in the treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the ankle: proof of concept in an open prospective study and in a randomized controlled study. Arthritis Rheum.  2002  Nov;46(  11):2893-902.
 
van Valburg  AA;  van Roermund  PM;  Marijnissen  AC;  Wenting  MJ;  Verbout  AJ;  Lafeber  FP;  Bijlsma  JW. Joint distraction in treatment of osteoarthritis (II): effects on cartilage in a canine model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.  2000  Jan;8(  1):1-8.
 

Submit a comment

References

Coester  LM;  Saltzman  CL;  Leupold  J;  Pontarelli  W. Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2001  Feb;83(  2):219-28.
 
SooHoo  NF;  Zingmond  DS;  Ko  CY. Comparison of reoperation rates following ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2007  Oct;89(  10):2143-9.
 
Marijnissen  AC;  Van Roermund  PM;  Van Melkebeek  J;  Schenk  W;  Verbout  AJ;  Bijlsma  JW;  Lafeber  FP. Clinical benefit of joint distraction in the treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the ankle: proof of concept in an open prospective study and in a randomized controlled study. Arthritis Rheum.  2002  Nov;46(  11):2893-902.
 
van Valburg  AA;  van Roermund  PM;  Marijnissen  AC;  Wenting  MJ;  Verbout  AJ;  Lafeber  FP;  Bijlsma  JW. Joint distraction in treatment of osteoarthritis (II): effects on cartilage in a canine model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage.  2000  Jan;8(  1):1-8.
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe





Related Content
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JBJS Case Connector
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
JBJS Jobs
03/19/2014
MA - The University of Massachusetts Medical School
02/19/2014
OH - University Hospitals Case Medical Center
06/29/2012
PA - Thomas Jefferson University
03/05/2014
OK - The University of Oklahoma