1. Total Ankle Replacement
Selene G. Parekh, MD, MBA
Associate Professor of Surgery
Partner, North Carolina Orthopaedic Clinic
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Adjunct Faculty Fuqua Business School
Duke University
Durham, NC
919.471.9622
http://seleneparekhmd.com
Twitter: @seleneparekhmd
2. Why a Total Ankle
Arthroplasty?
Severe painful post-traumatic osteoarthritis
3. Comparison of Health-Related
Quality of Life Between Patients with
End-Stage Ankle & Hip Arthrosis
JBJS Mar 2008; 90:499-505
• End stage ankle arthritis is as
severe, if not worse, than end
stage hip disease.
4. Why a Total Ankle
Arthroplasty?
• The Need for Other Surgical Options:
» Debilitating pain
» Patients with large bone loss
» Subtalar and/or midtarsal arthrosis
» Bilateral involvement
• Other Advantages:
» Provides pain relief
» Preserves joint motion & stability
15. TAR: What Went Wrong?
• 1st generation problems
• Did not respect
• Anatomy
• Kinematics
• Alignment
• Stability
16. TAR: What Went Wrong?
• 1st generation problems
• Excessive bone resections
• Changed in level of the ankle axis
• Constrained design
• Poor cement fixation in fatty bone marrow
• Multi-axial design relied on ligaments
17. TAR: What Went Wrong?
MAYO prosthesis (1974)
IRVINE arthroplasty
18. TAR: What Went Wrong?
• High incidence of complications
» Delayed wound healing
» Fibular impingement
» Loosening (radiologic and clinical)
» Malleolar fractures
19. TAR: What Went Wrong?
Conaxial ankle
replacement medial
malleolar fracture
Ankle is in Varus and Tibial
Component is Loose
20. What Went Wrong?
Constrained
•Treated the ankle as a hinge joint - transfer
stresses to bone-cement interface
»TPR
»ICLH
»Conaxial
»Mayo Clinic (1976)
ICLH
arthroplasty
23. Questions Outstanding
• Should the bearing be fixed or mobile?
• Fixed Bearings
• Track record in knee and hip
• One sided wear
• More difficult exchange
• Mobile bearings
• Good congruency Easier ligament tensioning
• Incidence of medial joint pain secondary to tight
tensioning
• Subluxation induced wear concerning
28. FDA approved TAA
Salto-Talaris with cement
S.T.A.R. without cement
INBONE with cement
Zimmer with cement
Prophecy without cement
Infinity without cement
Hintegra
Agility with cement
Eclipse with cement
Mobility
Exactech
Integra
29. Salto Total Ankle
• Next Generation……..
• Instrumentation to
Find “Sweet Spot” in
Fixed Bearing
Prosthesis
30. Salto Data
• FB better than MB
• 98% survivorship @ 3.5 yrs
• 85% survivorship @ 7-11 yrs
• Significant improvement in gait
• Survivorship lower in low volume centers
52. Selection of Implant
• Under 40yo
• Mobile bearing – STAR, Salto, Hintegra
• ? Zimmer
• Over 40yo
• Mobile bearing
• Fixed – Salto
• ? Zimmer
• Over 300lb (136kg), revision, big deformity
• Intramedullary device – InBone
53. Indications for TAA
•Optimal Patient
• Less excessive
demands
» Rheumatoid arthritic
patients
» Post-traumatic arthritis
• Older
• Multiple joint arthrosis
to slow them down
54. Indications for TAR
• Relative indication:
» Youthful, active individuals
• Contraindications:
» Talar AVN, Charcot Joint, neurologically
compromised foot, chronic infection
55. Outcomes
• TAR better than AA walking upstairs, downstairs, uphill
• TAR high rate of satisfaction & biomechanics of the gait
similar to a healthy ankle
• Bilateral gait mechanics
• Altered in fusion patients
• Relatively recovered TAR patients
• Gait patterns in 3component, mobile-bearing TAR more
closely resembled normal gait compared to fusion
56. Outcomes
• TAR & fusion significant improvements in various
parameters of gait
• Neither group functioned as well as normal control
subjects
• Fusion relieves pain and improves overall function
• Persistent alterations in gait
• TAR - improvements in pain and gait up to 2 years
57. Conclusions
• Both ankle design and technique dictate
what works to obtain a good result
• Expanding capability of ankle
replacements
• Offer opportunity to do ankle replacements
in all patients, regardless of deformity or
previous surgery