Current Status of Total Ankle Replacement

Total ankle replacement. Review and critical analysis of the current status

“…Dini and Bassett, 30 months [21] show, in studies with over 5 years follow-up, only 24-65% successful results and 35-76% failed implants [27]. The main reason for failure besides and allows more range of motion in plantarflexion [24].…”

“…In contrast to former tibial components made of mainly caused by implantation with poor stability, and malleolar and soft tissue impingement [11]. In polyethylene [3,7,11,14,17] nowadays the tibial components are metal-backed [13,24] and some the studies of Newton [11], Dini and Bassett [21], and Kirkup [30] the non-constrained designs showed designs have attempted to involve cortical bone in the fixation as is done in knee prostheses [8,13,26].…”

“…A talar design replacing all surfaces is the STAR prosthesis [8], while the TPR-prostheses replace only the superior talar articular surfaces. The prototype of Stauffer [24], on the other hand, replaces the whole of the tibial and talar surfaces. Even an attempt to replace the fibular surface has been described but was in use only for a short time because of a high failure rate [25].…”

“…Mayo-ankle 1976, a highly constrained design, the range of motion includes only extension and flexion [24].…”

“…These are the technique of fixation and inadequate reconstruction of the articular surface. The impingement) [24] as well as medial and lateral malleolar fractures occurred [11,23]. It is surprising prostheses (ICLH, TPR, Buchholz, Smith, Newton, Mayo, PCA) examined by Loskutov [36] showed a that there are medial malleolar fractures which occur in the lateral approach to the ankle joint [23].…”