In the past few decades, total ankle replacement (TAR) has become the backbone of treatment for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, with improving outcomes. The aim of the present study was to present the long-term survival of the HINTEGRA TAR. This single-center retrospective cohort study included 722 ankles in 683 patients who underwent HINTEGRA TAR for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. We performed a survival analysis and assessed potential risk factors. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction were determined. The cumulative survival rate was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 95%) at 5 years, 86% (95% CI, 83% to 88%) at 10 years, and 82% (95% CI, 78% to 85%) at 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision, accounting for 54 (43%) of 126 revision procedures. A secondary etiology was associated with a lower risk of revision than primary or posttraumatic. The HINTEGRA TAR results in desirable long-term implant survival with an acceptable revision rate. Coronal-plane instability must be evaluated and addressed at the time of the index surgery. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims: Implant failure has become more common as the number of primary total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) performed has increased. Although revision arthroplasty has gained attention for functional preservation, the long-term results remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of revision TAA using a mobile-bearing prosthesis in a considerably large cohort; the risk factors for failure were also determined.Methods: This single-centre retrospective cohort study included 116 patients (117 ankles) who underwent revision TAA for failed primary TAA between July 2000 and March 2010. Survival analysis and risk factor assessment were performed, and clinical performance and patient satisfaction were evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up.Results: The mean duration from initial revision TAA to last follow-up was 15.0 years (SD 3.0; 11.2 to 20.5). The cumulative survival rates of the revised ankles were 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74% to 88%), 74% (65% to 82%), and 70% (61% to 79%) at five, ten, and 15 years, respectively. Comorbidities prior to primary TAA, aseptic loosening, instability, or grafting of cysts were found to be the most common risk factors for secondary revision. The median value for preoperative pain, as assessed using the visual analogue scale, declined from 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 5 to 8) to 2 (IQR 0 to 5) (p < 0.001) and the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score improved from 43 (SD 17) preoperatively to 70 (SD 20) (p < 0.001) at last follow-up.Conclusion: Revision TAA offers acceptable survival rates after 15 years; it therefore offers a valuable option for treatment of implant failure in carefully selected cases. Although patient-reported outcomes improve substantially, the degree of improvement reported following primary TAA is not achieved.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):46–52.

Background: Given the growing number of primary total ankle replacements (TAR), an increase in the number of patients undergoing subsequent revisions might be expected. Achieving a stable and balanced ankle while preserving the remaining bone stock as much as possible is crucial for success in revision TAR. Most reported techniques rely on bulky implants with extended fixation features. Since 2018, we have used a novel, three-component ankle prosthesis for revision that is converted in situ to a fixed-bearing, two-component ankle prosthesis once the components have found their position according to an individual’s anatomy. The results of this novel concept (fixation, revision, pain, or function) have not, to our knowledge, been reported. Questions/purposes: What are the short-term results with this new revision TAR design, in terms of (1) repeat revision surgery, (2) patient-reported outcomes on the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, (3) pain according to the VAS, and (4) radiographic signs of fixation? Methods: Between February 2018 and February 2020, we performed 230 TAR surgeries (in 206 patients) for any indication in our clinic. The novel semiconstrained, uncemented Hintermann Series H2^© implant was used in 96% (220 of 230) of procedures (201 patients). Fifty-four percent (119 of 220) of these were converted from an existing TAR to H2, which was the focus of the present study. However, only 45% (54 of 119) of these conversions to H2 were eligible for analysis. These patients had a mean age of 63 ± 12 years, and 43% (23 of 54) were women. The median (range) follow-up time was 3.2 years (2.0 to 4.3). The H2 design allows in situ conversion to a fixed-bearing system, with minimal bone resection. It achieves translational and rotational stability while preserving function and supporting the periarticular soft tissues. We defined repeat revision as exchange of one or both metal components, ankle fusion, or amputation and assessed it using a cumulative incidence survivorship estimator. Factors potentially associated with revision were assessed using Cox regression analyses. Clinical and radiologic outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at the most recent follow-up interval. Clinical outcomes included pain on the VAS (average pain during normal daily activity during the past seven days) and AOFAS score. Radiologic outcomes were the tibial articular surface angle, tibiotalar surface angle, talar tilt angle in the coronal plane, and AP offset ratio in the sagittal plane, as well as radiolucent lines and radiographic signs of loosening, defined as change in position greater than 2° of the flat base of the tibia component in relation to the long axis of the tibia, subsidence of the talar component into the talus greater than 5 mm, or change in position greater than 5° relative to a line drawn from the top of the talonavicular joint to the tuberosity of the calcaneus, as seen on plain weightbearing radiographs. Results: The cumulative incidence of repeat revision after 1 and 2 years was 5.6% (95% CI 0% to 11%) and 7.4% (95% CI 0% to 14%), respectively. With the numbers available, no clinical factors we analyzed were associated with the risk of repeat revision. The median values of all assessed clinical outcomes improved; however, not all patients improved by clinically important margins. The median (range) AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score increased (from 50 [16 to 94] to 78 [19 to 100], difference of medians 28; p < 0.01), and the median pain on the VAS decreased (from 5 [0 to 9] to 2 [0 to 9], difference of medians 3; p < 0.01) from before surgery to follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. Radiographically, lucency was seen in 12% (6 of 49 patients) and loosening was seen in 8% (4 of 49). One of these patients showed symptomatic loosening and was among the four patients overall who underwent revision. We could not assess risk factors for repeat revision because of the low number of events (four). Conclusion: The investigated new in situ fixed-bearing ankle design achieved overall better short-term results than those reported in previous research. Destabilization of the ankle joint complex, soft tissue insufficiency, and possible changes of the joint configuration need an optimal solution in revision arthroplasty. The studied implant might be the answer to this complex issue and help surgeons in the perioperative decision-making process. However, a relatively high percentage of patients did not achieve a clinically important difference. Observational studies are needed to understand long-term implant behavior and possibly to identify ankles benefiting the most from revision. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Aims: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods: We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results: In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion: Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702.

Background: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common modes of failure of total ankle replacement (TAR). However, a precise definition of aseptic loosening is still lacking. This systematic review aimed to identify the variations of applied definitions and offer insights into the lack of consensus. Methods: Human studies reporting aseptic loosening of TAR published in peer-reviewed journals within the last decade were considered. The search strategy involved specific terms in Embase, MEDLINE ALL, and the Cochrane Library. Variations in aseptic loosening definitions were analysed. Results: Of 767 studies, 88 were included in this study. Only nine studies precisely defined aseptic loosening with significant variations. Twenty-two studies referenced the term and fifty-seven reported it as a complication but neither defined nor referenced it. Conclusions: Significant uncertainty exists regarding the universal definition of aseptic loosening of TAR, and many variations occur in terms of the assessment approach and criteria.