Midterm Outcomes of the INBONETM II Total Ankle Arthroplasty.

As the number of total ankle arthroplasties (TAA) performed continues to increase, understanding midterm outcomes can guide both implant selection and preoperative patient counseling. The purpose of this study was to investigate midterm results including the survival rate and reasons for revision for the INBONETM II TAA. Patients undergoing a primary TAA with the study implant and minimum of 4.6 years postoperative follow-up were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. The primary outcome was implant survival. Secondary outcomes included coronal plane radiographic alignment, evaluation for cysts and osteolysis, and failure mode when applicable. Patients were eligible for inclusion in this study if they had a minimum of 4.6-year follow-up TAA with the study implant. Eighty-five TAAs in 83 patients were eligible for inclusion; 75 TAA in 73 patients were included in the study. The mean duration of follow up was 6.2 ± 0.9 years (range 4.7-8.1 years). Thirty-six percent of the TAAs had a preoperative coronal plane deformity of at least 10°, and 12% of the TAAs had at least 20°. There were 6 (8%) implant failures that occurred at a mean 2.0 ± 1.4 years postoperatively. Eighty-one percent of the TAAs had no reoperation events in the follow-up period. Midterm outcomes at a minimum of 4.6 years postoperatively in patients undergoing a TAA using this implant demonstrates acceptable implant survival, an approximately 20% reoperation rate, and maintenance of coronal plane alignment.

Intermediate-term Experience With the STAR Total Ankle in the United States.

BACKGROUND:: Limited intermediate and no real long-term follow-up data have been published for total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) in the United States. This is a report of clinical follow-up data of a prospective, consecutive cohort of patients who underwent TAA by a single surgeon from 1999 to 2013 with the Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR) prosthesis. METHODS:: Patients undergoing TAA at a single US institution were enrolled into a prospective study. These patients were followed at regular intervals with history, physical examination, and radiographs; American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale scores were obtained and recorded. Primary outcomes included implant survivability and functional outcomes scores. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications such as periprosthetic or polyethylene fracture. Between 1999 and 2013, a total of 138 STAR TAAs were performed in 131 patients; 81 patients were female. The mean age at surgery was 61.5 ± 12.3 years (range, 30-88 years). The mean duration of follow-up for living patients who retained both initial components at final follow-up was 8.8±4.3 years (range 2-16.9 years). RESULTS:: The mean change in AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot scores from preoperative to final follow-up was 36.0 ± 16.8 ( P < .0001). There were 21 (15.2%) implant failures that occurred at a mean 4.9 ± 4.5 years postoperation. Ten polyethylene components in 9 TAAs (6.5%) required replacement for fracture at an average 8.9 ± 3.3 years postoperatively. Fourteen patients died with their initial implants in place. CONCLUSION:: This cohort of patients with true intermediate follow-up after TAA with the STAR prosthesis had acceptable implant survival, maintenance of improved patient-reported outcome scores, and low major complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level IV, case series.

Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical cadaveric study. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the amount of motion generated in an unstable cervical spine fracture with use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone. Our hypothesis is that the vacuum mattress will better immobilize an unstable cervical fracture. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Trauma patients in the United States are immobilized on a rigid spine board, whereas in many other places, vacuum mattresses are used with the proposed advantages of improved comfort and better immobilization of the spine. METHODS: Unstable subaxial cervical injuries were surgically created in five fresh whole human cadavers. The amount of motion at the injured motion segment during testing was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc.). The measurements recorded in this investigation included maximum displacements during application and removal of the device, while tilting to 90°, during a bed transfer, and a lift onto a gurney. Linear and angular displacements were compared using the Generalized Linear Model analysis of variance for repeated measures for each of the six dependent variables (three planes of angulations and three axes of displacement). RESULTS: There was more motion in all six planes of motion during the application process with use of the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (P = 0.011), axial distraction (P = 0.035), medial-lateral translation (P = 0.027), and anteroposterior translation (P = 0.026). During tilting, there was more motion with just the spine board, but this was only statistically significant for anteroposterior translation (P = 0.033). With lifting onto the gurney, there was more motion with the spine board in all planes with statistical significance, except lateral bending. During the removal process, there was more motion with the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (P = 0.035), lateral bending (P = 0.044), and axial distraction (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: There was more motion when using a spine board alone during typical maneuvers performed during early management of the spine injured patient than the vacuum mattress. There may be benefit of use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone in preventing motion at an unstable, subaxial cervical spine injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.