0
Commentary and Perspective   |    
The Revolution and Unanswered QuestionsCommentary on an article by Beat Hintermann, MD, et al.: “HINTEGRA Revision Arthroplasty for Failed Total Ankle Prostheses”
Albert W. Marr, MD1
1 OrthoWilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

The author received no payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. Neither the author nor his institution has had any financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with any entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. Also, 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 © 2013 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013 Jul 03;95(13):e94 1-1. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00620
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
With the relatively recent publication of the long-term results of total ankle replacement1, as well as the efficacy of this procedure compared with ankle arthrodesis2, total ankle replacement is rapidly becoming a viable option in the treatment of degenerative disorders of the ankle. As more orthopaedic surgeons continue to push the boundaries and as more residencies and fellowships are training surgeons in this procedure, there will obviously be an increase in the number of total ankle replacements performed each year. Couple that with the aging population and perceived quality-of-life issues, and I believe that we are on the cusp of a revolution in the treatment of such diseases. Although there will always be a role for ankle arthrodesis, I believe that total ankle replacement, much like total knee and total hip replacement, will become the standard of care. However, along with such advancement there will be new questions that need to be addressed regarding indications for total ankle replacement (limitations involving deformity, age, and weight) and revision options. The article by Hintermann et al. addresses the question regarding revision surgery, and it is an important article as the primary implants will have a limited life span and there will be a need for viable revision solutions even with use of the strictest indications.
The strengths and weaknesses of this article are closely related. The most obvious weakness, from my perspective, is that it represents merely another case series study performed by a single surgeon with use of his prosthesis design, which is currently not available for use in the United States. Will these results be reproducible, and how can we interpret this information regarding an implant that is currently not available for use in the United States? In my opinion, however, this study goes beyond outcome reporting. It is a starting point from which to begin to answer revision-related questions. The authors present a classification system for evaluating failure and bone loss defects that will be useful for further publications and discussions regarding the patterns of failure. The authors also go further by defining principles for revision surgery that are potentially general in nature, useful for a range of similar primary implant designs. The failures of the primary ankle replacements were not limited to a single implant design, and the authors applied their concepts across a broad spectrum of failures with good intermediate-term results. The results would, in fact, have been useful even if the revision outcomes had been poor. Surgeons will also be able to use the information in discussing the available options and outcomes with their patients when total ankle replacements fail.
Although I do not believe that this will become a landmark article, I do believe that it is the type of article that is needed, especially as we begin to try to answer the questions that will be posed as more total ankle replacement procedures are performed. Obviously, other studies will need to be performed, including direct comparisons of ankle arthrodesis with revision, to allow the surgeon to make decisions regarding the best option for patients. Even other surgeons’ experiences will be useful as we strive to answer the question of what to do about implant failure, other than tell our patients that we’ll cross that bridge later. This study is a necessary starting point that provides a guideline for revision surgery and will advance our understanding of the use of total ankle replacement. Although the outcome results presented in this article may only be directly applicable to the HINTEGRA implant, the overall concepts are beneficial to our understanding of the future treatment options for failed total ankle replacements.
Mann  JA;  Mann  RA;  Horton  E. STAR™ ankle: long-term results. Foot Ankle Int.  2011 May;32(  5):S473-84.[CrossRef]
 
Saltzman  CL;  Mann  RA;  Ahrens  JE;  Amendola  A;  Anderson  RB;  Berlet  GC;  Brodsky  JW;  Chou  LB;  Clanton  TO;  Deland  JT;  Deorio  JK;  Horton  GA;  Lee  TH;  Mann  JA;  Nunley  JA;  Thordarson  DB;  Walling  AK;  Wapner  KL;  Coughlin  MJ. Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results. Foot Ankle Int.  2009 Jul;30(  7):579-96.[CrossRef]
 

Submit a comment

References

Mann  JA;  Mann  RA;  Horton  E. STAR™ ankle: long-term results. Foot Ankle Int.  2011 May;32(  5):S473-84.[CrossRef]
 
Saltzman  CL;  Mann  RA;  Ahrens  JE;  Amendola  A;  Anderson  RB;  Berlet  GC;  Brodsky  JW;  Chou  LB;  Clanton  TO;  Deland  JT;  Deorio  JK;  Horton  GA;  Lee  TH;  Mann  JA;  Nunley  JA;  Thordarson  DB;  Walling  AK;  Wapner  KL;  Coughlin  MJ. Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results. Foot Ankle Int.  2009 Jul;30(  7):579-96.[CrossRef]
 
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
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Guidelines
The treatment of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis. -American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) | 9/11/2009
Results provided by:
PubMed
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
JBJS Jobs
12/31/2013
S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
04/16/2014
Connecticut - Yale University School of Medicine
04/02/2014
W. Virginia - Charleston Area Medical Center