What happens after failed total ankle replacement?

N. Jagani, W. Harrison, J. Davenport, M. Karski, J. Ring, R. Smith, T. Clough

Aims: Retrospective review of a consecutive series of 1,168 total ankle replacements (TAR) performed at Wrightington, to analyse modes of failure and clinical outcomes following TAR failure.

Methods: All patients undergoing TAR between November 1993 – June 2019 were collated (4-25 year follow-up; mean 13.7 years). 6 implants were used (300 STAR, 100 Buechal Pappas, 509 Mobility, 118 Zenith, 41 Salto and 100 Infinity). 5 surgeons, all trained in TAR, performed the surgery. Modes of failure were collated and clinical and radiological outcomes recorded for the revisional surgery following failure of the TAR.

Results: 156 (13.4%) TARs failed (47STAR 15.6%, 16BP 16%, 77Mobility 15.1%, 6Salto 14.6%, 10Zenith 8.5% and 0Infinity 0%). Mean time to failure 5.8 years (0.1- 21.4 years). The 4 most common modes of failure were 44.9% aseptic loosening, 11.5% gutter pain, 10.9% infection and 10.3% recurrent edge loading. 50 underwent conversion to tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusion with nail with 9 (18%) failing to fuse. 31 underwent revision TAR with 2 (6.5%) subsequently failed. 22 underwent ankle fusion with 10 (45%) failing to fuse. 21 underwent polyethylene exchange of which 8 (38%) had further poly failure. 20 (12.8%) were managed conservatively, 2 (1.3%) required below knee amputation and 6 were listed but lost to follow-up. 81 of the 1168 (7%) consecutive cohort were lost to follow-up.

Conclusion: 13.4% of the TAR cohort have failed at average follow-up 13.7 years. There was no difference in failure modes across the implant designs. Whilst the fixed bearing has the shortest follow-up, it may be performing better as there have been no failures so far. Prior to October 2016, most revisions were to fusion (TTC 18% failure rate, ankle 45% failure rate), whereas post 2016, 57% patients elected for revision TAR (6.5% failure).