BOFAS Abstracts Archive

You can search for abstracts by using the search bar below.
Alternatively you can browse through podium and poster presentations by selecting the year and / or type below. You can further refine your search using tags or use the search bar.

 



Categories: Abstracts, 2025-Jan, Podium

Clinical comparison of fixed bearing versus mobile bearing total ankle replacement

S Bitar, J Davenport, M Karski, J Ring, R Smith, T Clough

1Wrightington Hospital, Wrightington

Second Trainee Podium Prize

Aims: We compared the clinical outcomes of a fixed bearing (Infinity) and a mobile bearing (Zenith) ankle replacement in a demographically similar group of patients, from a single, non designer centre.

Methods: Between December 2010 and May 2016, 118 consecutive mobile bearing prostheses (Zenith) and between September 2017 and November 2019, 118 consecutive fixed bearing (Infinity) prostheses were implanted in a total cohort of 230 patients. Demographic, clinical, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data were collected. The end point of the study was failure of the implant requiring revision of one or more of the components. Kaplan Meier survival tables were generated.

Results: Demographics were similar for both groups (age, pre-operative arthritic diagnosis and co-morbidities). 32 patients (36 ankles) died during follow-up, but none required revision. Of the surviving 198 patients (200 ankles; 93 Zenith, 107 Infinity), mean follow-up was 9.1 years (6.0 - 13.1 years) for Zenith and 5.0 years for Infinity (3.6 €“ 6.8 years). A total of 11 implants (9.3%) failed for Zenith and 1 implant (0.8%) failed for Infinity, requiring revision. Average time to failure for Zenith was 3.4 years (0.4 - 10.5 years) and the time to failure for Infinity was 4.1 years. Implant survival at five years, using revision as an endpoint, was 91.3% for Zenith and 98.7% for Infinity. There was a mean improvement in Manchester-Oxford Foot and Ankle Questionnaire (MOXFQ) from 85.0 to 32.8 for Zenith and 79.3 to 26.4 for Infinity, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores from 7.0 to 3.2 for Zenith and 6.9 to 2.7 for Infinity. The commonest reason for revision was aseptic loosening for both implants.

Conclusion: Our results show a significantly better survivorship for the fixed bearing over the mobile bearing prosthesis. Whilst the fixed bearing prosthesis had better PROMS scores, this was not significant.

Previous Article Clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision total ankle arthroplasty using the INBONE II prosthesis
Next Article Clinical outcomes following surgical management of insertional Achilles tendinopathy using a double row suture bridge technique with mean two year follow up
Print

Documents to download


Click thumbnail below to view poster / thumbnail:

Archive of Abstracts

2024   -   Prize Winners  |  All Abstracts
2023   -   Prize Winners  |  All Abstracts
2022   -   Prize Winners  |  All Abstracts
2021   -   Prize Winners  
2019   -   Podium  |  Poster
2018   -   Podium  |  Poster
2017   -   Podium  |  Poster
2016   -   Podium  |  Poster
2015   -   Podium  |  Poster
2014   -   Podium  |  Poster
2013   -   Podium  |  Poster
2011   -   All Abstracts
2009   -   All Abstracts
2008   -   All Abstracts
2007   -   All Abstracts
2006   -   All Abstracts
2005   -   All Abstracts
2004   -   All Abstracts
2002   -   All Abstracts
2001   -   All Abstracts
2000   -   All Abstracts
1999   -   All Abstracts
1998   -   All Abstracts
1997   -   All Abstracts
1996   -   All Abstracts
1995   -   All Abstracts
1994   -   All Abstracts
1993   -   All Abstracts
1991   -   All Abstracts
1990   -   All Abstracts
1989   -   All Abstracts
1987   -   All Abstracts
1985   -   All Abstracts
1983   -   All Abstracts