Better implant survival with modern ankle prosthetic designs: 1,226 total ankle prostheses followed for up to 20 years in the Swedish Ankle Registry

• Main Authors: Alexandra Undén, Lars Jehpsson, Ilka Kamrad, Åke Carlsson, Anders Henricson, Magnus K Karlsson, Björn E Rosengren
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2020-03-01
• Series: Acta Orthopaedica
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1709312

Background and purpose — We have previously reported on the prosthetic survival of total ankle replacements (TAR) in Sweden performed between 1993 and 2010. Few other reports have been published on 5- and 10-year survival rates. Furthermore, there is a lack of long-term outcome data on modern prosthetic designs. Therefore, we compared early and current prosthetic designs after a mean 7-year follow-up. Patients and methods — On December 31, 2016, 1,230 primary TARs had been reported to the Swedish Ankle Registry. We analyzed prosthetic survival, using exchange or permanent extraction of components as endpoint for 1,226 protheses with mean follow-up of 7 years (0–24). Differences between current (Hintegra, Mobility, CCI, Rebalance, and TM Ankle) and early prosthetic designs (STAR, BP, and AES) were examined by log rank test. Results — 267/1,226 prostheses (22%) had been revised by December 31, 2016. We found an overall prosthetic survival rate at 5 years of 0.85 (95% CI 0.83–0.87), at 10 years 0.74 (CI 0.70–0.77), at 15 years 0.63 (CI 0.58–0.67), and at 20 years 0.58 (CI 0.52–0.65). For early prosthetic designs the 5- and 10-year survival rates were 0.81 (CI 0.78–0.84) and 0.69 (CI 0.64-0.73) respectively, while the corresponding rates for current designs were 0.88 (CI 0.85–0.91) and 0.84 (CI 0.79–0.88). Current prosthetic designs had better survival (log rank test p < 0.001). Interpretation — Our results point to a positive time trend of prosthetic survival in Sweden; use of current prosthetic designs was associated with better prosthetic survival. Improved designs and instrumentation, more experienced surgeons, and improved patient selection may all have contributed to the better outcome.