Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis

Yuji Maenohara, Akira Taniguchi, Kiyonori Tomiwa, Daisuke Tsuboyama, Hiroaki Kurokawa, Tsukasa Kumai, Sakae Tanaka, Yasuhito Tanaka

研究成果: Article

2 引用 (Scopus)

抄録

Background: While ankle arthrodesis is a common treatment for severe ankle osteoarthritis, performing bilateral ankle arthrodesis is controversial because of associated problems, such as severe gait abnormality and bilateral loss of talocrural joint motion. Furthermore, few reports exist regarding the detailed outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis with those of unilateral ankle arthrodesis, using both subjective and objective assessments. Methods: The data from 20 patients (10 each in the bilateral and unilateral groups), who underwent arthrodesis between 2005 and 2015, were retrospectively reviewed. The minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using radiographs and computed tomography. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) scale and the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q). Results: With the numbers available, no significant group differences were observed for any of the patient characteristics or postoperative range of motion. Mean JSSF scale scores significantly improved in both groups (P <.001); however, scores on the SAFE-Q subscale for “social functioning” were significantly lower in the bilateral group compared to the unilateral group (P =.049). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study design, bilateral ankle arthrodesis did not appear to be inferior to unilateral ankle arthrodesis, with the possible exception of social functioning ability. Thus, bilateral ankle arthrodesis can be considered a viable treatment option. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

元の言語English
ジャーナルFoot and Ankle International
DOI
出版物ステータスAccepted/In press - 2018 1 1
外部発表Yes

Fingerprint

Arthrodesis
Ankle
Foot
Articular Range of Motion
Gait
Osteoarthritis
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Joints
Tomography
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

これを引用

Maenohara, Y., Taniguchi, A., Tomiwa, K., Tsuboyama, D., Kurokawa, H., Kumai, T., ... Tanaka, Y. (受理済み/印刷中). Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis. Foot and Ankle International. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717749505

Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis. / Maenohara, Yuji; Taniguchi, Akira; Tomiwa, Kiyonori; Tsuboyama, Daisuke; Kurokawa, Hiroaki; Kumai, Tsukasa; Tanaka, Sakae; Tanaka, Yasuhito.

:: Foot and Ankle International, 01.01.2018.

研究成果: Article

Maenohara, Y, Taniguchi, A, Tomiwa, K, Tsuboyama, D, Kurokawa, H, Kumai, T, Tanaka, S & Tanaka, Y 2018, 'Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis', Foot and Ankle International. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717749505
Maenohara, Yuji ; Taniguchi, Akira ; Tomiwa, Kiyonori ; Tsuboyama, Daisuke ; Kurokawa, Hiroaki ; Kumai, Tsukasa ; Tanaka, Sakae ; Tanaka, Yasuhito. / Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis. :: Foot and Ankle International. 2018.
@article{2b29f3f1a3bb486fa84402a7804d9473,
title = "Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis",
abstract = "Background: While ankle arthrodesis is a common treatment for severe ankle osteoarthritis, performing bilateral ankle arthrodesis is controversial because of associated problems, such as severe gait abnormality and bilateral loss of talocrural joint motion. Furthermore, few reports exist regarding the detailed outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis with those of unilateral ankle arthrodesis, using both subjective and objective assessments. Methods: The data from 20 patients (10 each in the bilateral and unilateral groups), who underwent arthrodesis between 2005 and 2015, were retrospectively reviewed. The minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using radiographs and computed tomography. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) scale and the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q). Results: With the numbers available, no significant group differences were observed for any of the patient characteristics or postoperative range of motion. Mean JSSF scale scores significantly improved in both groups (P <.001); however, scores on the SAFE-Q subscale for “social functioning” were significantly lower in the bilateral group compared to the unilateral group (P =.049). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study design, bilateral ankle arthrodesis did not appear to be inferior to unilateral ankle arthrodesis, with the possible exception of social functioning ability. Thus, bilateral ankle arthrodesis can be considered a viable treatment option. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.",
keywords = "ankle arthrodesis, ankle osteoarthritis, JSSF scale, SAFE-Q",
author = "Yuji Maenohara and Akira Taniguchi and Kiyonori Tomiwa and Daisuke Tsuboyama and Hiroaki Kurokawa and Tsukasa Kumai and Sakae Tanaka and Yasuhito Tanaka",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1071100717749505",
language = "English",
journal = "Foot and Ankle International",
issn = "1071-1007",
publisher = "AOFAS - American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of Bilateral vs Unilateral Ankle Arthrodesis

AU - Maenohara, Yuji

AU - Taniguchi, Akira

AU - Tomiwa, Kiyonori

AU - Tsuboyama, Daisuke

AU - Kurokawa, Hiroaki

AU - Kumai, Tsukasa

AU - Tanaka, Sakae

AU - Tanaka, Yasuhito

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: While ankle arthrodesis is a common treatment for severe ankle osteoarthritis, performing bilateral ankle arthrodesis is controversial because of associated problems, such as severe gait abnormality and bilateral loss of talocrural joint motion. Furthermore, few reports exist regarding the detailed outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis with those of unilateral ankle arthrodesis, using both subjective and objective assessments. Methods: The data from 20 patients (10 each in the bilateral and unilateral groups), who underwent arthrodesis between 2005 and 2015, were retrospectively reviewed. The minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using radiographs and computed tomography. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) scale and the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q). Results: With the numbers available, no significant group differences were observed for any of the patient characteristics or postoperative range of motion. Mean JSSF scale scores significantly improved in both groups (P <.001); however, scores on the SAFE-Q subscale for “social functioning” were significantly lower in the bilateral group compared to the unilateral group (P =.049). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study design, bilateral ankle arthrodesis did not appear to be inferior to unilateral ankle arthrodesis, with the possible exception of social functioning ability. Thus, bilateral ankle arthrodesis can be considered a viable treatment option. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

AB - Background: While ankle arthrodesis is a common treatment for severe ankle osteoarthritis, performing bilateral ankle arthrodesis is controversial because of associated problems, such as severe gait abnormality and bilateral loss of talocrural joint motion. Furthermore, few reports exist regarding the detailed outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of bilateral ankle arthrodesis with those of unilateral ankle arthrodesis, using both subjective and objective assessments. Methods: The data from 20 patients (10 each in the bilateral and unilateral groups), who underwent arthrodesis between 2005 and 2015, were retrospectively reviewed. The minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using radiographs and computed tomography. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) scale and the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q). Results: With the numbers available, no significant group differences were observed for any of the patient characteristics or postoperative range of motion. Mean JSSF scale scores significantly improved in both groups (P <.001); however, scores on the SAFE-Q subscale for “social functioning” were significantly lower in the bilateral group compared to the unilateral group (P =.049). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study design, bilateral ankle arthrodesis did not appear to be inferior to unilateral ankle arthrodesis, with the possible exception of social functioning ability. Thus, bilateral ankle arthrodesis can be considered a viable treatment option. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

KW - ankle arthrodesis

KW - ankle osteoarthritis

KW - JSSF scale

KW - SAFE-Q

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044041853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044041853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1071100717749505

DO - 10.1177/1071100717749505

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85044041853

JO - Foot and Ankle International

JF - Foot and Ankle International

SN - 1071-1007

ER -