Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimum Distraction Gap: How Much Ankle Joint Space Is Enough in Ankle Distraction Arthroplasty?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
HSS Journal ®

Abstract

Background

The success of ankle distraction arthroplasty relies on the separation of the tibiotalar articular surfaces.

Question/Purpose

The purpose of this study was to find the minimum distraction gap needed to ensure that the tibiotalar joint surfaces would not contact each other with full weight-bearing while under distraction.

Methods

Circular external fixators were mounted to nine cadaver ankle specimens. Each specimen was then placed into a custom-designed load chamber. Loads of 0, 350, and 700N were applied to the specimen. Radiographic joint space was measured and joint contact pressure was monitored under each load. The external fixator was then sequentially distracted, and the radiographic joint space was measured under the three different loads. The experiment was stopped when there was no joint contact under 700N of load. The radiographic joint space was measured and the initial (undistracted) radiographic joint space was subtracted from it yielding the distraction gap. The minimum distraction gap (mDG) that would provide total unloading was calculated.

Results

The average mDG was 2.4 mm (range, 1.6 to 4.0 mm) at 700N of load, 4.4 mm (range, 3.7 to 5.8 mm) at 350N of load, and 4.9 mm (range, 3.7 to 7.0 mm) at 0N of load.

Conclusion

These results suggest that if the radiographic joint space of on a standing X-ray of an ankle undergoing distraction arthroplasty shows a minimum of 5.8 mm of DG, then there will be no contact between joint surfaces during full weight-bearing. Therefore, 5 mm of radiographic joint space, as recommended historically, may not be adequate to prevent contact of the articular surfaces during weight-bearing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buckwalter JA, Mankin HJ. Articular cartilage: degeneration and osteoarthritis, repair, regeneration, and transplantation. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47: 487-504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Inda D, Blyakher A, O’Malley M, et al. Distraction arthroplasty for the ankle using the Ilizarov frame: techniques in foot & ankle surgery. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2003; 2(4): 249-253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Intema F, Thomas TP, Anderson DD, et al. Subchondral bone remodeling is related to clinical improvement after joint distraction in the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011; 19: 668-675.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lajeunesse D. The role of bone in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2004; 12(Suppl A): S34-S38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lamm BM, Gourdine-Shaw M. MRI evaluation of ankle distraction: a preliminary report. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2009; 26: 185-91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marijnissen ACA, Vincken KL, Viergever MA. Ankle images digital analysis (AIDA): digital measurement of joint space width and subchondral sclerosis on standard radiographs. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2001; 9: 264-272.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Muniz AMS, Nadal J. Application of principal component analysis in vertical ground reaction force to discriminate normal and abnormal gait. Gait Posture. 2009; 29(1): 31-35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Paley D, Lamm BM, Purohit RM, et al. Distraction arthroplasty of the ankle—how far can you stretch the indications? Foot Ankle Clin. 2008; 13: 471-484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tellisi N, Fragomen A, Kleinmann D, et al. Joint preservation of the osteoarthritic ankle using distraction arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2009; 30(4): 318-325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Roermund PM, Marijnissen AC, Lafeber FP. Joint distraction as an alternative for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Foot and Ankle Clinics of North America. 2002; 7(3): 515-527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Valburg A, van Roermund P, Lammens J, et al. Can Ilizarov joint distraction delay the need for an arthrodesis of the ankle? A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77-B(5): 720-725.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Van Valburg AA, van Roermund PM, Marijnissen ACA, et al. Joint distraction in treatment of osteoarthritis: a two-year follow-up of the ankle. Osteoarthr Cartil. 1999; 7(5): 474-479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Valburg AA, Van Roermund PM, Marijnissen AC, et al. Joint distraction in treatment of osteoarthritis (II): effects on cartilage in a canine model. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2000; 8(1): 1-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Valburg AA, van Roy HL, Lafeber FP, et al. Beneficial effects of intermittent fluid pressure of low physiological magnitude on cartilage and inflammation in osteoarthritis. An in vitro study. J Rheumatol. 1998; 25(3): 515-520.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Conflict of Interest:

Austin Fragomen, MD, is a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew and receives royalties from Small Bone Innovations (outside the work). S. Robert Rozbruch, MD, is a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew and receives royalties from Small Bone Innovations (outside the work). Thomas McCoy and Kathleen Meyers have declared that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human/Animal Rights:

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Informed Consent:

N/A

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Austin T. Fragomen MD & S. Robert Rozbruch MD

  2. Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Thomas H. McCoy MD

  3. Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Austin T. Fragomen MD, Kathleen N. Meyers MS & S. Robert Rozbruch MD

Authors
  1. Austin T. Fragomen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas H. McCoy MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen N. Meyers MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Robert Rozbruch MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Austin T. Fragomen MD.

Additional information

This work was performed at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 510 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 510 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 510 kb)

ESM 4

(PDF 510 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fragomen, A.T., McCoy, T.H., Meyers, K.N. et al. Minimum Distraction Gap: How Much Ankle Joint Space Is Enough in Ankle Distraction Arthroplasty?. HSS Jrnl 10, 6–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-013-9359-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-013-9359-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation