Zusammenfassung
Für die Behandlung der Arthrose des oberen Sprunggelenks (OSG) im Endstadium wird allgemein die Arthrodese des OSG als Goldstandard erachtet. Dies gilt nicht zuletzt aufgrund der hohen Versatilität des Verfahrens sowie der Einsatzmöglichkeiten für zahlreiche Indikationen und Befundkonstellationen. Heute stellt prinzipiell auch die Sprunggelenkendoprothetik unter bestimmten Prämissen eine ernst zu nehmende Alternative dar, da mithilfe beider Verfahren eine relevante Schmerzreduktion sowie ein ähnlicher Funktionsgewinn erzielt werden können und mittlerweile Zehnjahresstandzeiten der Prothesen zwischen 76 und 89 % berichtet werden. Die Revisionsraten beider Techniken werden mit bis zu 10 % angegeben; hierbei unterscheidet sich das Komplikationsspektrum jeweils deutlich voneinander. Bei mehr als zwei Dritteln aller Patienten ist die Genese der Arthrose traumatischen Ursprungs mit relativ niedrigem Altersdurchschnitt und oftmals begleitenden Fehlstellungen, Weichteilschäden oder Instabilitäten des OSG. Eine Wiederherstellung korrekter Achsbeziehungen und die Zentrierung des Talus unter der Tibia sind für beide Verfahren ergebnisrelevant ebenso wie die adäquate Weichteilbalancierung, hier v. a. beim Gelenkersatz. Der korrekten Indikationsstellung und Verfahrenswahl anhand einer ausreichenden präoperativen Diagnostik auch hinsichtlich erforderlicher additiver operativer Maßnahmen kommt somit für das Outcome des Patienten wesentliche Bedeutung zu.
Abstract
In general, for the treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis of the ankle joint arthrodesis is considered to be the gold standard based on its versatility and eligibility for numerous indications. Nowadays, total ankle arthroplasty represents a viable alternative to ankle arthrodesis taking into account distinct premises as both procedures provide a calculable reduction of the preoperative pain level and a comparable functional gain. Furthermore, current 10-year-survival rates of total ankle replacement are reported to range between 76 % and 89 %. Revision rates of up to 10 % for both techniques have been reported with manifest differences within the respective spectrum of complications. Due to the fact that more than two thirds of patients suffer from post-traumatic osteoarthritis with a relatively low average of age concomitant malalignment, soft tissue damage or instability may frequently occur. A restoration of anatomic axes and an adequate centering of the talus under the tibia appear to be crucial for the outcome as well as an adequate soft tissue balancing, in particular in total ankle replacement. Thus, the selection of the correct indication and the right choice of treatment on the basis of complete preoperative diagnostics considering necessary additive surgical measures are of paramount importance for the final outcome.
Literatur
Guyer AJ, Richardson G (2008) Current concepts review: total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int 29:256–264
Easley ME, Adams SB Jr, Hembree WC et al (2011) Current concepts review. Results of total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 93-A:1455–1468
Abt H-P, Neun O, Zivko G et al (2011) Posttraumatische Arthrose des oberen Sprunggelenks – wann Arthrodese, wann Endoprothese? Trauma Berufskrankh 14:198–203
Courville XF, Hecht PJ, Tosteson AN (2011) Is total ankle arthroplasty a cost-effective alternative to ankle fusion? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1721–1727
Deorio JK, Easley ME (2008) Total ankle arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 57:383–413
Espinosa N, Klammer G (2010) Treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: arthrodesis versus total ankle replacement. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 36:525–535
Park JS, Mroczek KJ (2011) Total ankle arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 69:27–35
Rippstein PF, Naal FD (2011) Sprunggelenkprothese bei chronischer Polyarthritis. Orthopade 40:984–990
Glazebrook M, Daniels T, Younger A et al (2008) Comparison of health-related quality of life between patients with end-stage ankle and hip arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:499-505
Martin RL, Stewart GW, Conti SF (2007) Posttraumatic ankle arthritis: an update on conservative and surgical management. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:253–259
Wassermann LR, Saltzman CL, Amendola A (2004) Minimally invasive ankle reconstruction: current scope and indications. Orthop Clin North Am 35:247–253
Henricson A, Nilsson J-A, Carlsson A (2011) 10-year survival of total ankle arthroplasties. A report on 780 cases from the Swedish ankle register. Acta Orthop 82:655–659
Hintermann B (2005) Endoprothetik des Sprunggelenks. Historischer Überblick, aktuelle Therapiekonzepte und Entwicklungen. Springer, Wien
Valderrabano V, Hintermann B, Nigg BM et al (2003) Kinematic changes after fusion and total replacement of the ankle. Part 1: range of motion. Foot Ankle Int 24:881–887
Valderrabano V, Hintermann B, Nigg BM et al (2003) Kinematic changes after fusion and total replacement of the ankle. Part 2: movement transfer. Foot Ankle Int 24:888–896
Zwipp H, Rammelt S, Endres T et al (2010) High union rates and function scores at midterm follow-up with ankle arthrodesis using a four screw technique. Clin Orthop Rel Res 468:958–968
Krause FG, Windolf M, Bora B et al (2011) Impact of complications in total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis analysed with a validated outcome measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:830–839
Feldman MH, Rockwood J (2004) Total ankle arthroplasty: a review of 11 current ankle implants. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 21:393–406
Saltzman CL, Mann RA, Ahrens JE et al (2009) Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results. Foot Ankle Int 30:579–596
Brodsky JW, Polo FE, Coleman SC et al (2011) Changes in gait following the Scandinavian total ankle replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1890–1896
Detrembleur C, Leemrijse T (2009) The effects of total ankle replacement on gait disability: analysis of energetic and mechanical variables. Gait Posture 29:270–274
Piriou P, Culpan P, Mullins M et al (2008) Ankle replacement versus arthrodesis: a comparative gait analysis study. Foot Ankle Int 29:3–9
Thomas R, Daniels TR, Parker K (2006) Gait analysis and functional outcomes following ankle arthrodesis for isolated ankle arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:526–535
Waters RL, Mulroy S (1999) The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture 9:207–231
Doets HC, Middelkoop M van, Houdijk H et al (2007) Gait analysis after successful mobile bearing total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int 28:313–322
Valderrabano V, Frigg A, Leumann A et al (2011) Sprunggelenkprothese bei Valgusarthrose. Orthopade 40:971–977
Barg A, Elsner A, Anderson AE et al (2011) The effect of three-component total ankle replacement malalignment on clinical outcome: pain relief and functional outcome in 317 consecutive patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1969–1978
Wood PLR, Sutton C, Mishra V et al (2009) A randomised, controlled trial of two mobile-bearing total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:69–74
Kim BS, Choi WJ, Kim YS et al (2009) Total ankle replacement in moderate to severe varus deformities of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1183–1190
Knupp M, Bolliger L, Barg A et al (2011) Sprunggelenkprothese bei Varusarthrose. Orthopade 40:964–970
Haddad SL, Coetzee JC, Estok RN et al (2007) Intermediate and long-term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1899–1905
SooHoo NF, Zingmond DS, Ko CY (2007) Comparison of reoperation rates following total ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2143–2149
Schuh R, Hofstaetter J, Krismer M et al (2012) Total ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis. Comparison of sports, recreational activities and functional outcome. Int Orthop 36:1207–1214
Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF (2010) Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:815–826
Gougoulias N, Khanna A, Maffulli N (2010) How successful are current ankle replacements? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:199–208
Slobogean GP, Younger A, Apostle KL et al (2010) Preference-based quality of life of end-stage ankle arthritis treated with arthroplasty or arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 31:563–566
Hansen ST (2005) Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur Technik der Sprunggelenksarthrodese im Hinblick auf einen späteren Wechsel zur Sprunggelenksendoprothese. Oper Orthop Traumatol 17:563–568
Hintermann B, Barg A, Knupp M et al (2009) Conversion of painful ankle arthrodesis to total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:850–858
Nunley JA, Caputo AM, Easley ME et al (2012) Intermediate to long-term outcomes of the STAR total ankle replacement: the patient perspective. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:43–48
Stengel D, Bauwens K, Ekkernkamp A et al (2005) Efficacy of total ankle replacement with meniscal-bearing devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125:109–119
Zhou H, Yang Y, Yu G et al (2011) A systematic review of outcome and failure rate of uncemented Scandinavian total ankle replacement. Int Orthop 35:1751–1758
Bonnin M, Gaudot F, Laurent J et al (2010) The Salto total ankle arthroplasty. Survivorship and analysis of failures at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Rel Res 469:493–502
Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI et al (2007) 257 ankle arthroplasties performed in Norway between 1994 and 2005. Acta Orthop 78:575–583
Hosman AH, Mason RB, Hobbs T et al (2007) A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years. Acta Orthop 78:584–591
Skyttä ET, Koivu H, Eskelinen A et al (2010) Total ankle replacement: a population-based study of 515 cases from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 81:114–118
Danksagung
Der Autor dankt Herrn Thomas Wodetzki, Rostock, für die grafische Gestaltung dieses Beitrags.
Interessenkonflikt
Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mittlmeier, T. Arthrodese versus Totalendoprothese des oberen Sprunggelenks. Unfallchirurg 116, 537–552 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-013-2366-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-013-2366-5