Advertisement

Some reflections about the evolution of ankle prosthesis

  • H. Kofoed

Abstract

The aim with an ankle arthroplasty is to give freedom from pain, to retain or improve function and mobility. To achieve these goals it is necessary to know:
  • underlying pathology of the degenerated ankle joint;

  • the possibilities for a safe access to the ankle joint;

  • fixation of the prosthetic components, and;

  • the biological, biomechanical and kinematic behaviour of the hindfoot complex.

A successful result of an ankle arthroplasty will depend on all these features. The different arthroplastic designs seen since the seventies have more or less neglected vital parts of these goals. The results have been disappointing compared to the results of hip and knee arthroplasties. The reason is obviously that the ankle joint is a much more complex joint than the simple hip and the rather simple knee and the influence of the neighbouring joints. Thorough knowledge of the inside anatomy of the ankle joint is mandatory when considering an ankle arthroplasty. The shape of the talus, the possibility for talus rotation inside the ankle mortise, the rotation of the fibula, and the weight-bearing of not only the upper part of the talus but also the joints between the malleoli and the talus facets must be considered (14). Furthermore, the access to the ankle joint is difficult, and especially fixation with cement is a difficult task provided only limited bone resections are needed. The influence of the softtissue structures is of utmost importance as these guide the mobility, and allow function and stability.

Keywords

Rheumatoid Arthritis Ankle Joint Tibial Component Synovial Cyst Prosthetic Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1992) Survivorship and clinical evaluation of cementless, miniscal-bearing total ankle replacements. Semin Arthroplasty 3: 43–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlsson ÅS, Henricson A, Linder L, Nilsson J-A, Redlund-Johnell I (1994). A survival analysis of 52 Bath & Wessex ankle replacements. Foot 4: 34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Demottaz JD, Mazur JN, Thomas WH, Sledge CB, Simon SR (1979) Clinical study of total ankle replacement with gait analysis: preliminary report. J Bone Surg (Am) 61: 976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 60-B: 358–69Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groth HE, Fitch HF (1987) Salvage procedures for complications of total ankle arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 224: 245–249Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helweg J, Kofoed H (1998) The fibula rotates during motion in the ankle joint. In Current status of ankle arthroplasty. Ed. H. Kofoed, 61–63, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jensen NC, Kroener K (1992) Total joint replacement. A clinical follow-up. Orthopedics 15:236–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkup J (1985) Richard Smith ankle arthroplasty. J R Soc med 78: 301–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kofoed H (1986) A new total ankle prosthesis, in Material Sciences and Implant Orthopaedic Surgery. Eds R. Kossowsky, N Kossowsky. Nato Asi series E 116: 75–84. Martinus Nijhoff PublGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kofoed H, Danborg L (1995) Biological fixation of ankle arthroplasty. Foot 5: 27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kofoed H (2000) Total replacement of the ankle joint in: Surgical Techniques in Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 55-630-D-10, Ed. DuParc et al., Elsevier SAS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kofoed H (2001) Unanswered questions and unquestioned answers. The STAR prosthesis. AAOS 68 meeting. San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Buechel FF, Northeut EJ, Hajner ME (2000) A determination of ankle kinematics using fluoroscopy. Foot Ankle Int 21(4): 343–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambert KL (1971) The weight-bearing function of the fibula. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 51:146–58Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leardini A, O’Connor JJ, Catani F, Gianinni S (1999) A geometrical model for the human ankle joint. J Biomechanics 32: 585–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leicht P, Kofoed H (1992) Subtalar arthrosis following ankle arthrodesis. Foot 2: 89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lord G, Marotte JH. (1980) Total ankle replacement. Rev Chir Orthop 66: 5227–530Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lundberg A (1989) Kinematics of the ankle and foot. Stereophotogranmmetric analysis. Acta Orthop Scand 50:Suppl 223: 1–23Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newton SE 3rd (1982) Total ankle arthroplasty. Clinical study of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 64: 104–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pappas MJ, Buechel FF, DePalma AF (1976) Cylindrical total ankle joint replacement: Surgical and biomechanical rationale. Clin Orthop 118: 82–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pipino F, Calderale PM (1976) An ankle prosthesis of new design. II policlino Lez chir. 83: 559–63Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scholtz KC (1987) Total ankle arthroplasty using biological fixation components compared to ankle arthrodesis. Orthopedics 10: 125–31Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stauffer RN, Chao EYS, Brewster RC (1977) Force and motion analysis of the normal, diseased nd prosthetic ankle joint. Clin Orthop 127: 189–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wynn AH, Wilde AH (1992) Long-term follow-up of the Conaxial (Beck-Steefee) total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle 13: 303–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zerahn B, Kofoed H, Borgwardt A (2000) Increased bone mineral density adjacent to hydroxyapatite-coated ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int 21(4): 285–9PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Kofoed
    • 1
  1. 1.CharlottenlundDenmark

Personalised recommendations