Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes After Total Ankle Replacement and Ankle Arthrodesis: An ACS-NSQIP Database Study.

Over the past 2 decades, several studies comparing intermediate- and long-term outcomes after total ankle replacement (TAR) versus ankle arthrodesis (AA) have reported differing rates of complications and outcomes. Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in patients undergoing TARs without any epidemiologic studies examining the short-term and perioperative complications. The purpose of this prognostic study was to compare perioperative outcomes after TAR and AA using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database between 2012 and 2017. Patient data were collected from the NSQIP database for surgeries between January 2012 and December 2017 using Current Procedural Terminology codes 27700, 27702, 29899, and 27870. Patients were excluded if treated for fracture, infection, or revision procedures. The outcomes of interest were readmission and reoperation related to initial surgery, surgical site infections, and hospital length of stay. There were 1214 patients included-1027 (84.6%) TAR and 187 (15.4%) AA. The TAR patients were older, had a lower body mass index, and were less likely to have insulin-dependent diabetes. Readmission rate and length of stay was similar between groups. Multivariate regression revealed higher anesthesia severity scores (P = .0007), diabetes mellitus (P = .029), and AA (P = .049) had positive correlations with adverse outcomes. We report a lower complication rate with TAR than previously described. AA arthrodesis is associated with a higher risk of perioperative complications, including deep surgical site infections and reoperations. There were no differences between the 2 groups comparing superficial infection, wound dehiscence, or readmissions in the first 30 days.Levels of Evidence: Level V.

Charcot Midfoot Reconstruction: Does Subtalar Arthrodesis or Medial Column Fixation Improve Outcomes?

Charcot neuroarthropathy is a complication of neuropathy often secondary to diabetes mellitus and most commonly affects the midfoot. In these patients, reconstruction of the foot may be required for limb salvage. A superconstruct technique has previously been described using intramedullary beaming fixation of the midfoot and hindfoot to span the zone of injury. Inclusion of the subtalar joint in the arthrodesis construct is not consistently performed among different surgeons. The aim of this study was to describe midfoot beaming constructs and postoperative complications after midfoot reconstruction with and without subtalar arthrodesis. We reviewed medical records of patients who underwent midfoot Charcot reconstruction with an intramedullary beaming superconstruct. Patients included in the study had at least 3 months of follow-up and had Sanders-Frykberg II/III classification of Charcot neuroarthropathy. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for evidence of hardware failure at the latest follow-up evaluation. The main variables of interest were: hardware failure or nonunion requiring revision operation, deep infection, and unplanned reoperation. Thirty patients who underwent midfoot reconstruction were included. The mean follow-up was 67.4 ± 25.9 weeks. Twenty-two (73.3%) patients had concomitant subtalar arthrodesis and midfoot beaming. Overall complications were lower in patients with subtalar arthrodesis (40.9%) than those without subtalar arthrodesis (75%) resulting in an odds ratio of 0.271 (0.042-1.338, p = .146). Furthermore, increased number of screws used in the midfoot construct was negatively correlated with complications (r = -0.44, p = .01). An intramedullary midfoot beaming superconstruct with subtalar arthrodesis has previously been proposed to provide better fixation after midfoot beaming Charcot neuroarthropathy reconstruction. Our results suggest including the subtalar joint as part of a superconstruct for the reconstruction of Sanders-Frykberg II/III Charcot results in an 80% lower complication rate than intramedullary beaming alone. We also found an increased number of screws used in the midfoot results in a lower complication rate.

Real-Time Monitoring with a Controlled Advancement Drill May Decrease Plunge Depth.

BACKGROUND: Although drill use is fundamental to orthopaedic surgery, the risk of plunging past the far cortex and potentially damaging the surrounding soft tissues remains unavoidable with conventional drilling methods. A dual motor drill may decrease that risk by providing controlled drill-bit advancement and real-time monitoring of depth and energy expenditure. We hypothesized that using the dual motor drill would decrease plunge depth regardless of the user's level of experience. METHODS: Sixty-six subjects of varying operative experience (20 attending orthopaedic surgeons, 20 orthopaedic surgery residents, and 26 senior medical students) drilled 3 holes with a conventional drill and 3 holes with a dual motor drill in a bicortical Sawbones block set in ballistic gel. The depth of drill penetration into the ballistic gel was measured for each hole using a digital caliper. RESULTS: Overall, subjects plunged less with the dual motor drill (0.9 mm) than with the conventional drill (4.2 mm) (p < 0.001). This finding was consistent within each group: attending surgeons (0.9 compared with 3.2 mm; p = 0.02), residents (1.0 compared with 3.0 mm; p < 0.001), and students (0.7 compared with 6.0 mm; p < 0.001). Plunge depths were also stratified into 3 categories: 0 to <2 mm, 2 to 5 mm, and >5 mm. Using the dual motor drill, subjects were more likely to plunge <2 mm (97% plunged, on average, 0 to <2 mm and 3% plunged, on average, 2 to 5 mm), whereas subjects were more likely to plunge deeper with the conventional drill (27% plunged, on average, 0 to <2 mm, 45% plunged, on average, 2 to 5 mm, and 27% plunged, on average, >5 mm). Notably, no subject plunged ≥2 mm on the third attempt with the dual motor drill. Attending surgeons (p = 0.02) and residents (p = 0.01) plunged less than students with the conventional drill. There was no significant difference between attending surgeons and residents with the conventional drill (p = 0.96). There was no significant difference in plunge depth between groups using the dual motor drill. CONCLUSIONS: The dual motor drill significantly decreased plunge depth for both surgically experienced and inexperienced subjects. Although inexperienced subjects performed worse with the conventional drill than those with experience, there was no difference in their performance with the dual motor drill. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of a controlled advancement drill may decrease the chance of plunge-related neurovascular injury during in vivo drilling.