Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle
Open Access

Total ankle joint replacement; Surgical intervention; Stage ankle arthritis

Introduction

Total ankle joint replacement, also known as total ankle arthroplasty or total ankle replacement (TAR), is a surgical procedure designed to address severe arthritis or other debilitating conditions affecting the ankle joint. The surgery involves replacing the damaged or arthritic ankle joint with an artificial implant, aiming to restore function, reduce pain, and improve overall quality of life for individuals with significant ankle joint pathology.

Discussion

Patient selection

Ideal patient choice is critical for the outcome of all out lower leg joint substitution. Candidates typically present with severe ankle arthritis, severe pain, and functional limitations that have a significant negative impact on their quality of life. To ensure suitability for TAR, careful preoperative evaluation takes into account age, activity level, bone quality, and the presence of deformities [1].

Surgical intervention

Complete lower leg joint substitution includes the expulsion of harmed joint surfaces and the implantation of prosthetic parts to reestablish capability [2,3]. Propels in embed plan and careful methods have worked on the life span and results of TAR. Careful methodologies might incorporate foremost, parallel, or back techniques, each with its remarkable benefits and contemplations. The decision of embed type, whether fixed or versatile bearing, is customized to individual patient attributes [4,5].

Clinical outcomes

Positive clinical outcomes have been reported in numerous studies following total ankle joint replacement. Patients usually experience decreased torment, further developed scope of movement, and upgraded useful capacities. Personal satisfaction measurements, for example, patient-announced result measures, show critical upgrades postoperatively. Long haul studies contribute important bits of knowledge into the solidness of inserts and the general outcome of TAR in keeping up with lower leg capability after some time [6,7].

Complications

While complete lower leg joint substitution has exhibited positive results, it isn't without expected intricacies. Inconveniences might incorporate disease, embed slackening, peri-prosthetic breaks, and neurovascular injury [8,9]. Specialist experience, patient consistence,and postoperative consideration assume vital parts in limiting these dangers. Proceeded with exploration and headways expect to additional location and relieve entanglements related with TAR [10,11].

Conclusion

For patients with end-stage ankle arthritis, total ankle joint replacement has developed into a well-established and efficient surgical option. Clinical outcomes have improved as a result of improved surgical techniques and implant design, as well as careful patient selection. Progressing examination and development in the field expect to upgrade the sturdiness and address potential entanglements related with all out lower leg joint substitution, at last contribution a promising answer for people looking for help from crippling lower leg joint pain.

1. Abdeen AR, Collen SB, Vince KG (2010). Fifteen-year to 19-year follow-up of the Insall-Burstein-I total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 25: 173-178.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Babis GC, Trousdale RT, Morrey BF (2002). The effectiveness of isolated tibial insert exchange in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 84: 64-68.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Bal BS, Greenberg D (2007). Failure of a metal-reinforced tibial post in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 22: 464-467.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Bal BS, Greenberg D, Li S, Mauerhan D, Schultz L, et al. (2008). Tibial post failures in a condylar posterior cruciate substituting total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 23: 650-655.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Boesen MP, Jensen TT, Husted H (2004). Secondary knee instability caused by fracture of the stabilizing insert in a dual-articular total knee. J Arthroplasty. 19: 941-943.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Brooks DH, Fehring TK, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH (2002).Polyethylene exchange only for prosthetic knee instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 405:182-188.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Callaghan JJ, O’Rourke MR, Goetz DD, Schmalzried TP, Campbell PA, et al. (2002). Tibial post impingement in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 404: 83-88.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Chiu YS, Chen WM, Huang CK, Chiang CC, Chen TH (2004). Fracture of the polyethylene tibial post in a NexGen posterior-stabilized knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 19: 1045-1049.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Clarke HD, Math KR, Scuderi GR (2004).Polyethylene post failure in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 19: 652-657.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Colizza WA, Insall JN, Scuderi GR (1995). The posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis: assessment of polyethylene damage and osteolysis after a ten-year minimum follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 77: 1713-1720.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. D’Angelo F, Marcolli D, Bulgheroni P, Murena L, Congiu T, et al. (2010). Two stage fracture of a polyethylene post in a 9-year-old posterior-stabilized knee prosthesis: a case report. J Med Case Reports. 4:65.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref