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.

Search

RSS Abstracts 476 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2013 64 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 24 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 40 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2014 36 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 36 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2015 49 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 20 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 29 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2016 45 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 18 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 27 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2017 40 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 15 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 25 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2018 47 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 22 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 25 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2019 48 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 25 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 23 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2021 15 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 10 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 6 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2022 46 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 23 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 23 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2023 46 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 23 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 23 Expand/Collapse
- RSS 2024 40 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Poster 18 Expand/Collapse
  - RSS Podium 22 Expand/Collapse

Categories: Abstracts, 2019, Poster

Revision of failed primary total ankle replacements to the Inbone 2 Total Ankle Replacement system: the Nottingham Experience

H. Salem, M. Raglan, S. Dhar

¹Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Introduction: Number of primary total ankle replacement (TAR) rises, the need for revision TAR's has also increased. Salvage procedures for failed TAR to date have ranged from ankle and TTC fusions, cement arthroplasty, attempts at further ankle replacement and below knee amputations. Clearly revision to another TAR is ideal and thus attempts continue to develop a satisfactory revision implant system. We present our experience of the Inbone 2 TAR system for revision of failed TAR from a high volume total ankle arthroplasty centre in the UK. We believe this to be the largest series of the Inbone 2 implant as a revision system worldwide, presented to-date.

Methods: We carried out a retrospective review of prospectively collected data at our institution and identified 26 patients (17M, 9F) that required revision to the Inbone 2 TAR with a mean age 66 years (51-81) between June 2016 and July 2019, the mean time to revision was 60 months (15-150) All implants were revised because of aseptic loosening. All patients were required to fill in PROMS (MOXFQ, EQ5D) and all had weight bearing X-rays at their follow up appointments at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months and then annually.

Results: A substantial improvement was noted in the clinical presentation of these revision cases as borne out by the significant improvement of their PROM scores, radiological alignment and range of movement. No lysis, cyst formation or ectopic bone was noted on x-rays at this early stage. All patients were fully mobile without walking aids. Full data will be presented at the meeting if the paper is selected.

Discussion: This very short-term review has got us excited because of the improvements noted clinically and radiologically. Whilst the procedure is complex, it does offer an opportunity to retain movement. Clearly these difficult cases will need continued follow-up.

Print

Tags: Salvage TAR

Click thumbnail below to view poster / thumbnail:

Archive of Abstracts