Response to review article published titled ‘Total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis - a comparison of outcomes over the last decade’

Abstract

We write in response to Lawton et al.’s (J Orthop Surg Res 12:76, 2017) important systematic review comparing the outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle arthrodesis (AA) after reviewing the existing literature. Traditionally, AA was the gold standard treatment for ankle osteoarthritis but there is renewed interest in TAR given modern design advantages of preserved ankle motion and gait. We outline some pertinent issues for surgeons to consider when interpreting results from review articles comparing treatment types given the limitations of primary studies. These include significant clinical heterogeneity from the indication for surgery, different treatment type subgroups and from poorly defined clinical outcomes.

Analysis of the ankle joint fixation methods in patients with failed treatment outcomes of distal tibia injuries and their consequences

“…The contemporary approaches to the treatment of terminal AJ osteoarthritis involve total arthroplasty or osteoplastic arthrodesis as the methods of choice; each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages due to the technology specifics, metal structure designs, and the specificity of potential complications [3][4][5][6]. These factors not only determine the choice of indications for surgical treatment, but also the chronological sequence when employing one or another AJ reconstruction technique within the revision intervention [7][8][9].…”