Total Ankle Arthroplasty Radiographic Alignment Comparison Between Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Standard Instrumentation.

BACKGROUND: Several benefits are published supporting patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). This study seeks to determine if TAA with PSI yields different radiographic outcomes vs standard instrumentation (SI). METHODS: Sixty-seven primary TAA patients having surgery using PSI or SI between 2013 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed using weightbearing radiographs at 6-12 weeks postsurgery. Radiographic parameters analyzed were the medial distal tibia angle (MDTA), talar-tilt angle (TTA), anatomic sagittal distal tibia angle (aSDTA), lateral talar station (LTS), and talar component inclination angle (TCI). A comparison of the 2 groups for each radiologic parameter's distribution was performed using a nonparametric median test and Fisher exact test. Furthermore, TAAs with all radiographic measurements within acceptable limits were classified as "perfectly aligned." The rate of "perfectly aligned" TAAs between groups was compared using a Fisher exact test with a significance of .05. RESULTS: Of the 67 TAAs, 51 were done with PSI and 16 with SI. There were no differences between groups in MDTA (P = .174), TTA (P = .145), aSDTA (P = .98), LTS (P = .922), or TCI angle (P = .98). When the rate of "perfectly aligned TAA" between the 2 groups were compared, there was no significant difference (P = .35). CONCLUSION: No significant radiographic alignment differences were found between PSI and SI implants. This study showed that both techniques achieve reproducible TAA radiographic coronal and sagittal alignment for the tibial component when performed by experienced surgeons. The talar component's sagittal alignment is similar whether or not PSI was used but is noticeably different from normal anatomic alignment by design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data.

Does Patient-Specific Instrumentation Have a Higher Rate of Early Osteolysis Than Standard Referencing Techniques in Total Ankle Arthroplasty? A Radiographic Analysis.

Introduction: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been developed for total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), with proven benefits. One concern regarding PSI is the need for more soft tissue dissection in order to accurately position the PSI guides, which has the theoretical disadvantage of increased osteolysis. The purpose of our study is to compare the incidence and magnitude of osteolysis for the INFINITY Total Ankle System between PSI and standard referencing (SR) techniques. Methods: Sixty-seven patients who underwent primary TAA using Prophecy (PSI) or SR technique between 2013 and 2015 were reviewed in a retrospective observational study. Osteolysis was assessed on radiographs at 2 years. The incidence was calculated by binomial distribution. The number of zones compromised and the magnitude of osteolysis was calculated using the median as a summary statistic and interquartile range as dispersion statistic. Fisher exact test was used to compare both groups, then a regression model was estimated to calculate the odds ratio for osteolysis. Results: Of the 67 TAAs, 51 were in the PSI group and 16 in the SR group. In the PSI group the incidence, number of compromised zones (CZ), and magnitude was 41% (25%-59%), 1 [1-2], and 2 [2-3], respectively. In the SR group these were 36% (13%-65%), 3 [2-3], and 3 [2-4], respectively. No significant differences were found (P = .46, P = .12, P = .33). A slightly higher risk of osteolysis was found in the PSI group (odds ratio = 1.33 [0.36-4.83]) (P = .46). The majority of lesions were in 1 zone with size of 2 to 5 mm (63% for all cohort, 64% PSI, 60% SR). Two cases underwent revision for aseptic loosening, 1 in the SR group and 1 in the PSI group. Conclusion: According to our data, there is no significant difference between PSI and SR in terms of risk, incidence, size and magnitude of osteolysis in the INFINITY Total Ankle System at 2 years. Levels of Evidence: Therapeutic, Level III, Retrospective cohort study.