Quality measure of total ankle replacement outcomes in a non-designer centre.
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0972-978X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101233220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
19
12
2019
revised:
18
02
2020
accepted:
22
03
2020
entrez:
30
5
2020
pubmed:
30
5
2020
medline:
30
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Total ankle replacement (TAR) is a high-risk procedure with significant revision rates, post-op complications and implant failures. Long term follow-up data is less available for TAR compared to other joint replacement surgeries. To identify optimal follow-up parameters for patients with TAR, we conducted a study on the clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients who had TAR performed in a non-designer's centre belonging to one of the hospitals of East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (ELHT). 60 TAR procedures were identified. Clinical outcomes being studied include post-op ankle range of movement (ROM), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot scores, reoperation/revision rates, radiological parameters and general surgical outcomes. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was also conducted. PROMs data included the EQ-5D index and the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOX-FQ). Ankle range of movement and AOFAS scores improved from pre-op to post-op with statistical significance. The reoperation rate and revision rate were 3.3% and 8.3% respectively. 5-year survival of implant was 97.3% and 10-year survival was 84.2%. Overall PROMs data showed improvement from pre-op to post-op. The clinical outcomes of TARs were comparable with conventional literature. Improvements in clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcomes were observed from pre-op to post-op. Further follow-up studies are required to assess the long-term survival of implants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Total ankle replacement (TAR) is a high-risk procedure with significant revision rates, post-op complications and implant failures. Long term follow-up data is less available for TAR compared to other joint replacement surgeries. To identify optimal follow-up parameters for patients with TAR, we conducted a study on the clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients who had TAR performed in a non-designer's centre belonging to one of the hospitals of East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (ELHT).
METHODS
METHODS
60 TAR procedures were identified. Clinical outcomes being studied include post-op ankle range of movement (ROM), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot scores, reoperation/revision rates, radiological parameters and general surgical outcomes. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was also conducted. PROMs data included the EQ-5D index and the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOX-FQ).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ankle range of movement and AOFAS scores improved from pre-op to post-op with statistical significance. The reoperation rate and revision rate were 3.3% and 8.3% respectively. 5-year survival of implant was 97.3% and 10-year survival was 84.2%. Overall PROMs data showed improvement from pre-op to post-op.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical outcomes of TARs were comparable with conventional literature. Improvements in clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcomes were observed from pre-op to post-op. Further follow-up studies are required to assess the long-term survival of implants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32467657
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.03.030
pii: S0972-978X(20)30118-5
pmc: PMC7240183
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
286-292Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Bone Joint Res. 2013 Apr 03;2(4):66-9
pubmed: 23673374
EFORT Open Rev. 2018 Jun 28;3(6):391-397
pubmed: 30034820
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
BMJ Open. 2016 May 23;6(5):e011332
pubmed: 27217286
Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Feb;27(2):88-92
pubmed: 16487459
Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Jun;23(2):102-107
pubmed: 28578792
Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Aug;25(4):523-528
pubmed: 30321952
Foot Ankle Int. 2015 Sep;36(9):1038-44
pubmed: 25910784
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Jul;92(7):958-62
pubmed: 20595114
Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Feb;39(2):135-142
pubmed: 29389250
Orthop Res Rev. 2017 Jul 31;9:63-73
pubmed: 30774478
Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Mar;37(3):281-7
pubmed: 26443698
Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov;95-B(11):1500-7
pubmed: 24151270
Acta Orthop. 2017 Dec;88(6):675-680
pubmed: 28812410
JB JS Open Access. 2017 Nov 28;2(4):e0033
pubmed: 30229229
Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Jun;23(2):95-101
pubmed: 28578801
J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 May 18;12(1):76
pubmed: 28521779
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 May;90(5):605-9
pubmed: 18450626
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Mar 13;112(11):177-84
pubmed: 25837859