Failure modes for total ankle arthroplasty: a statistical analysis of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register
- 562 Downloads
It is imperative to understand the most common failure modes of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) to appropriately allocate the resources, healthcare costs, enhancing surgical treatment methods, and improve design and longevity of the implant. The objective of this study was to investigate the primary mode or modes of failure (Loose talar component, loose tibial component, dislocation, instability, misalignment, deep infection, Fracture (near implant), Pain, defect polyethylene (PE), other, and missing information) of TAA implants, so these failure mode/modes can be targeted for future improvement.
The Norwegian Total Hip Arthroplasty Register 2008 was chosen as the primary source of data since the register have been in existence for 20 years and also gives more specific failure modes than other registries. Tukey–Kramer method was applied to Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
After the application of the Tukey–Kramer method, it is evident that there is no significant difference between any of the failure modes that are pertinent to the ankle. However, there is significant evidence that the number of ankle arthroplasties are increasing with time.
Since there is no statistical evidence showing which failure mode contributes most to revision surgeries, it is concluded that more information/data is needed to further investigate failure modes in ankle arthroplasties. Since the numbers of such surgeries are increasing, sufficient data should become available in time.
KeywordsTotal ankle arthroplasty Failure mode Statistical analysis Register data
- 6.Kitaoka HB, Patzer GL (1996) Clinical results of the mayo total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 78:1658–1664Google Scholar
- 7.Sadoghi P, Schröder C, Fottner A, Steinbrück A, Betz O, Müller PE, Jansson V, Hölzer A (2012) Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. Int Orthop 36(11):2197–2203PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Anderson T, Montgomery F, Carlsson A (2003) Uncemented STAR total ankle prostheses: three to eight year follow-up of fifty-one consecutive ankles. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85(7):1321–1329Google Scholar
- 14.Furnes O, Havelin LI, Espehaug B, Fenstad AM, Steindal K (2008) The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Report 2008. ISBN-0809-9405. ISBN- 978-82-91847-13-9. Bergen, Norway: 2008. pp 59–62Google Scholar
- 17.Montgomery DC (2008) Design and Analysis of Experiments. Wiley. 7th ed. 2008Google Scholar
- 21.Vielgut I, Kastner N, Pichler K, Holzer L, Glehr M, Gruber G, Leithner A, Labek G, Sadoghi P (2013) Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers. Int Orthop 28(8):1329–1332Google Scholar