Survival of primary ankle replacements: data from global joint registries

• Published in: Journal of foot and ankle research Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 33 - n/a
• Main Authors: Perry, Thomas A., Silman, Alan, Culliford, David, Gates, Lucy, Arden, Nigel, Bowen, Catherine
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central 07.05.2022; BioMed Central Ltd; Wiley
• Subjects: Analysis; Ankle; Annual; Annual reports; Estimates; Incidence; Joint surgery; Orthopedics; Osteoarthritis; Patient outcomes; Patients; Registries; Revision; Surgery; Survival; Survival analysis; Trends; New Zealand; United Kingdom; Sweden; Australia; Norway; United Kingdom > UK; Finland; Ankle; Registries; Annual; Revision; Survival; Incidence
• ISSN: 1757-1146; 1757-1146
• DOI: 10.1186/s13047-022-00539-2

Background Ankle arthroplasty, commonly known as ankle replacement, is a surgical procedure for treating end‐stage ankle osteoarthritis. Whilst evidence shows good clinical results after surgery, little is known of the long‐term survival of ankle replacements and the need for ankle revision. Using more recent implant data and long‐term data, there is now opportunity to examine at a population‐level the survival rate for ankle implants, to examine between‐country differences in ankle revision surgery, and to compare temporal trends in revision rates between countries. Methods Four national joint registries from Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden provided the necessary data on revision outcome following primary ankle replacement, for various periods of observation – the earliest starting in 1993 up to the end of 2019. Data were either acquired from published, online annual reports or were provided from direct contact with the joint registries. The key information extracted were Kaplan‐Meier estimates to plot survival probability curves following primary ankle replacement. Results The survival rates varied between countries. At 2 years, across all registries, survival rates all exceeded 0.9 (range 0.91 to 0.97). The variation widened at 5 years (range 0.80 to 0.91), at 10 years (range 0.66 to 0.84) and further at 15‐years follow‐up (0.56 to 0.78). At each time point, implant survival was greater in Australia and New Zealand with lower rates in Sweden and Norway. Conclusions We observed variation in primary ankle replacement survival rates across these national registries, although even after 5 years, these population derived data show an 80% revision free survival. These data raise a number of hypotheses concerning the reasons for between‐country differences in revision‐free survival which will require access to primary data for analysis.