Abstract ObjectiveTo explore the Clinical Outcomes between Total Ankle Arthroplasty with 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Ankle Arthrodesis with Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing for End-Stage Ankle Arthritis.The study included 50 patients with end-stage ankle arthritis, randomly assigned to two groups: the 3D-printed group (n = 25) and the arthrodesis group (n = 25). Comparisons were made between the two groups regarding age, body mass index, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, number of intraoperative fluoroscopy sessions, AOFAS score, VAS score, and SF-36 score (PCS and MCS scores).Compared to the arthrodesis group, the 3D-printed group exhibited a significant reduction in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and the number of fluoroscopic exposures, as well as significantly lower postoperative VAS scores (p 0.05).The preoperative Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores were marginally superior in the arthrodesis group compared to the 3D-printed group, whilst the Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were marginally superior in the 3D-printed group. Postoperatively, both groups demonstrated improved scores, with the 3D-printed group exhibiting greater relative improvements in both PCS and MCS scores than the arthrodesis group. However, the differences between groups did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05).Moreover, the 3D-printed group demonstrated superior AOFAS scores at the final follow-up compared to the arthrodesis group (p MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 50 patients with end-stage ankle arthritis who underwent inpatient surgery at the 940th Hospital of the PLA Joint Logistics Support Force between June 2019 and June 2025. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure received: a 3D-printed implant group (n = 25) and an arthrodesis group (n = 25). This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 3D-printed implants by assessing preoperative baseline data; intraoperative parameters (number of fluoroscopies, blood loss, and operation time); and postoperative outcomes at the final follow-up, including AOFAS, VAS, and SF-36 scores.ResultsCompared with the arthrodesis group, the 3D-printed group demonstrated shorter operative times, lower intraoperative blood loss, and fewer fluoroscopic examinations: (118.0 ± 14.5) minutes versus (141.2 ± 25.3) minutes; Intraoperative blood loss was (97.3 ± 12.4) millilitres vs (163.2 ± 26.8) millilitres; fluoroscopy use was (6.0 ± 1.7) times vs (10.4 ± 2.2) times; all differences were statistically significant (P ConclusionWithin the 3D printing group, patient-specific osteotomy guides manufactured via 3D printing technology enabled precise preoperative planning of osteotomy planes and prosthesis positioning, whilst providing intraoperative guidance. This enhanced surgical accuracy and minimised the need for repeated adjustments and manipulations during the procedure. This approach reduces operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and the number of fluoroscopic exposures. Furthermore, at the final follow-up, the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores demonstrated superior outcomes compared to the arthrodesis group.
Song et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: