Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 2333–2339 | Cite as

The Bologna-Oxford ankle replacement: a case series of clinical and radiological outcomes

  • Ali NajefiEmail author
  • Karan Malhotra
  • Oliver Chan
  • Nicholas Cullen
  • Andy Goldberg
Original Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The Bologna-Oxford (BOX®) total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is a three-component mobile-bearing implant gaining popularity in Europe. We aimed to analyse the outcomes of this TAA.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data on 34 consecutive BOX® TAAs performed at a single centre with a mean follow-up of 58 months. Radiographic outcomes, such as periprosthetic lucency and alignment, were measured and recorded. Prospectively captured clinical scores and range of movement (ROM) were also recorded.

Results

There were significant improvements in patient-reported outcome scores recorded in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) for pain (43.8 ± 20.2, p < 0.001), standing and walking (55.6 ± 19.8, p < 0.001), social activities (45.0 ± 26.9, p < 0.02) and visual analogue score (VAS) (3.1 ± 2.5, p < 0.001). Mean improvement in ROM postoperatively was 18.7° (p < 0.001), with post-operative dorsiflexion 8.8° (10°–25°) and plantar flexion 32.6° (20°–40°). There was evidence of asymptomatic lucency on five radiographs (15%), which was present in 10% at three years. Nine patients had complications (26%): six (18%) requiring secondary surgery and one requiring revision (3%) for infection.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated 97% survivorship at a mean of 58 months. There are maintained improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes and reoperation that are consistent with the literature.

Keywords

Mobile bearing Loosening Range of movement Alignment 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Goldberg AJ, MacGregor A, Dawson J et al (2012) The demand incidence of symptomatic ankle osteoarthritis presenting to foot & ankle surgeons in the United Kingdom. Foot 22:163–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2012.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Easley ME, Adams SB, Hembree WC, Deorio JK (2011) Results of total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1455–1468.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00126 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Courville XF, Hecht PJ, Tosteson ANA (2011) Is total ankle arthroplasty a cost-effective alternative to ankle fusion? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1721–1727.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1848-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saltzman CL, Kadoko RG, Suh JS (2010) Treatment of isolated ankle osteoarthritis with arthrodesis or the total ankle replacement: a comparison of early outcomes. Clin Orthop Surg 2:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2010.2.1.1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zaidi R, Cro S, Gurusamy K et al (2013) The outcome of total ankle replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J 95-B:1500–1507.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31633 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Queen RM, Sparling TL, Butler RJ et al (2014) Patient-reported outcomes, function, and gait mechanics after fixed and mobile-bearing total ankle replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:987–993.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00971 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haddad SL, Coetzee JC, Estok R et al (2007) Intermediate and long-term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. A systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1899–1905.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01149 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W et al (2011) Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93:293–297.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B3.25467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Green, M, Howard, P, Porter, M, Price, A, Wilkinson, M Wi, N. (2017) 14th annual report. Natl Jt RegistGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thornton J, Sabah S, Segaren N et al (2016) Validated method for measuring functional range of motion in patients with ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 37:868–873.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716645391 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H et al (2012) Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Jt Surg - Br Vol 94-B:215–221.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morley D, Jenkinson C, Doll H et al (2013) The Manchester – Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ). Development and validation of a summary index score. Bone Jt Res 2:66–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giannini S, Romagnoli M, O’connor JJ et al (2011) Early clinical results of the BOX ankle replacement are satisfactory: a multicenter feasibility study of 158 ankles. J Foot Ankle Surg 50:641–647.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.06.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood PL, Prem H, Sutton C (2008) Total ankle replacement: medium-term results in 200 Scandinavian total ankle replacements. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90:605–609.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B5.19677 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee AY, Ha AS, Petscavage JM, Chew FS (2013) Total ankle arthroplasty: a radiographic outcome study. Am J Roentgenol 200:1310–1316.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adams SB, Demetracopoulos CA, Viens NA et al (2013) Comparison of extramedullary versus intramedullary referencing for tibial component alignment in total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int 34:1624–1628.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713505534 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hsu AR, Davis WH, Cohen BE et al (2015) Radiographic outcomes of preoperative CT scan-derived patient-specific total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int 36:1163–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715585561 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magerkurth O, Knupp M, Ledermann H, Hintermann B (2006) Evaluation of hindfoot dimensions: a radiological study. Foot Ankle Int 27:612–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Queen RM, Jr SBA, Viens NA et al (2013) Differences in outcomes following total ankle. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:1927–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henricson A, Carlsson Å, Rydholm U (2011) What is a revision of total ankle replacement? Foot Ankle Surg 17:99–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2010.02.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gill LH (2004) Challenges in total ankle arthroplasty. Foot ankle Int / Am Orthop Foot Ankle Soc [and] Swiss Foot Ankle Soc 25:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bianchi A, Martinelli N, Sartorelli E, Malerba F (2012) The Bologna-Oxford total ankle replacement: a mid-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94:793–798.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B6.28283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giannini S, Romagnoli M, Barbadoro P et al (2017) Results at a minimum follow-up of 5 years of a ligaments-compatible total ankle replacement design. Foot Ankle Surg 23:116–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2017.03.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karantana A, Hobson S, Dhar S (2010) The Scandinavian total ankle replacement: survivorship at 5 and 8 years comparable to other series. Clin Orthop Relat Res:951–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hosman AH, Mason RB, Hobbs T, Rothwell AG (2007) A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years. Acta Orthop 78:584–591.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710014266 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pedowitz DI, Kane JM, Smith GM et al (2016) Total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis: a comparative analysis of arc of movement and functional outcomes. Bone Jt J 98:634–640.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B5.36887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coetzee JC, Petersen D, Stone RM (2017) Comparison of three total ankle replacement systems done at a single facility. Foot Ankle Spec 10:20–25.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015593077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Younger ASE, Glazebrook M, Veljkovic A et al (2016) A coding system for reoperations following total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 37:1157–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716659037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zaidi R, Macgregor AJ, Goldberg A (2016) Quality measures for total ankle replacement , 30-day readmission and reoperation rates within 1 year of surgery : a data linkage study using the NJR data set. BMJ Open 23(5).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Odum SM, Van Doren BA, Anderson RB, Davis WH (2017) In-hospital complications following ankle arthrodesis versus ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg - Am 99:1469–1475.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barg A, Henninger HB, Hintermann B (2011) Risk factors for symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in patients after total ankle replacement who received routine chemical thromboprophylaxis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93:921–927.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B7.26257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horne PH, Jennings JM, Deorio JK et al (2015) Low incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events after total ankle arthroplasty without routine use of chemoprophylaxis. Foot Ankle Int 36:611–616.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100715573717 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Najefi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karan Malhotra
    • 1
  • Oliver Chan
    • 1
  • Nicholas Cullen
    • 1
  • Andy Goldberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Foot & Ankle UnitRoyal National Orthopaedic HospitalStanmoreUK
  2. 2.Institute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal ScienceRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS TrustMiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations