Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Revision Total Ankle Arthroplasty Using an Intramedullary-Referencing Implant

Background: Treatment of failed total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is challenging. Limited literature is available on options and outcomes of revision arthroplasty despite failure rates ranging from 10% to 23% within 10 years after primary TAA. This study reports the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision TAA using a fixed-bearing, intramedullary-referencing implant. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 18 consecutive revision TAA cases between 2008-2015 using an intramedullary-referencing, fixed-bearing, 2-component total ankle system. Demographic and radiographic data were collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the most recent follow-up. Functional outcome data were collected immediately postoperatively and at mean follow-up 47.5 months. Results: Eighteen patients underwent revision TAA, with 77.8% (14/18) implant survival. Index revision was performed most commonly for aseptic talar subsidence (55.6%) or implant loosening (tibia, 29.4%; talus, 58.9%). Following revision, 22.2% (4/18) patients required reoperation at a mean 57.3 (39-86) months. Osteolysis of the tibia, talus, and fibula was present preoperatively in 66.7% (12/18), 38.9% (7/18), and 38.9% (7/18) of patients, respectively, with progression of osteolysis in 27.8% (5/18), 11.1% (2/18) and 11.1% (2/18) of patients, respectively. Subsidence of the tibial and talar revision components was observed in 38.9% (7/18) and 55.6% (10/18) of patients, respectively. The median American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score was 74.5 (26-100) and Foot Function Index (FFI) score 10.2 (0-50.4). Conclusion: Early results of intramedullary-referencing revision TAA demonstrated good patient-reported outcomes with maintenance of radiographic parameters at mean follow-up of 47.5 months. Aseptic talar subsidence or loosening were the main postoperative causes of reoperation. Revision arthroplasty utilizing an intramedullary-referencing implant was a viable option for the failed TAA. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.