Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background Patients who undergo either primary or revision total ankle replacement (TAR) expect improvements in pain, function and quality of life. The goal of this study was to measure the functional outcome improvements and the difference in patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary total ankle replacements compared to revision TAR. Methods A single-center prospective cohort study was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Patients undertook the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MoxFQ) and EQ-5D health quality questionnaires pre-operatively, at 6 months and yearly for life. The Mann Whitney test was undertaken for statistical analysis. Results A total of 165 primary and 71 revision ankle replacements were performed between 2016 and 2022. The mean age was 71 years for primary replacements and 69 years for revisions. The INFINITY was utilized in the majority of primary total ankle replacements. Revision replacements were either the INBONE II or INVISION and they were most often revising the MOBILITY implant. The main indication for revision was aseptic loosening (83%). Other causes included infection, malalignment and insert wear. The overall MoxFQ improved by a mean of 46.5 for primaries and 40.2 for revisions. The EQ-5D score also showed overall improvements with the mean difference in mobility increasing by 1.6. Conclusion Both primary and revision ankle replacements result in improved functional scores at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. In this cohort with the implants used, both primary and revision ankle replacements demonstrate similar improvements in functional scores.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Andrew Moriarity
Grand Rapids Community College
Martin Raglan
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Sunil Dhar
Central University of Jammu
Orthopaedic Proceedings
University of Nottingham
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Moriarity et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e65767b6db6435875e61ab — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992x.2024.12.019