Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: With the increasing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) literature, there is a need to further examine the outcomes across a wide variety of implants. The purpose of this study is to review the existing literature and identify trends among current individua...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: William Newton BS, Joshua L. Morningstar BS, Elizabeth K. Nadeau MD, Trevor D. Ottofaro MD, Christopher E. Gross MD, Daniel Scott MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2023-12-01
Series:Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011423S00163
_version_ 1797378065661165568
author William Newton BS
Joshua L. Morningstar BS
Elizabeth K. Nadeau MD
Trevor D. Ottofaro MD
Christopher E. Gross MD
Daniel Scott MD
author_facet William Newton BS
Joshua L. Morningstar BS
Elizabeth K. Nadeau MD
Trevor D. Ottofaro MD
Christopher E. Gross MD
Daniel Scott MD
author_sort William Newton BS
collection DOAJ
description Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: With the increasing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) literature, there is a need to further examine the outcomes across a wide variety of implants. The purpose of this study is to review the existing literature and identify trends among current individual TAA implants. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE for all articles published between 1996 and 2021 was conducted with a minimum two-year mean follow-up. Two reviewers evaluated each study to determine whether it was eligible for inclusion and abstracted the data of interest. Meta-analytic pooling of group results across studies was performed, examining for individual implant survival and component failure. Seventy-three implant groups met inclusion criteria (3rd and 4th generation implants only), composed of STAR (20), Salto (mobile bearing) (10), Salto Talaris (11), Hintegra (8), Zimmer (6), INBONE II (6), INBONE I (4), Infinity (4), Cadence (4). 41 groups (56.2%) were implanted with mobile bearing devices and 32 (43.8%) with fixed bearing implants. In total, 6498 subjects were included with a mean age of 61.77 years and mean BMI of 28.5 kg/m 2 . At mean follow-up of 62.2 months, the overall reoperation rate was 21.13% and metal component revision rate was 10.16%. Results: Multivariate analysis of all implants, controlling for follow-up duration, found a statistically significant difference in the metal component survival rate (p=.036) and reoperation rate (p=.007) with the STARs TAAs surviving significantly worse and undergoing reoperation at a significantly higher rate than all other implants. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of metal component revision (p=.768), tibial component failure rate (p=.095), or talar component failure rate (p=.089). Analysis of the Salto Talaris vs Salto found a significant difference in metal component survival rate (Salto=90.68%, Salto Talaris=97.81%; p=.002). Lastly, analysis of the INBONE I vs II implants found INBONE I had a significantly greater rate of revision due to metal component failure (INBONE I=9.8%, INBONE II=3.4%; p=.002). Conclusion: Based on current literature, it appears that the STAR total ankle implant has a statistically significantly lower rate of metal component survival and higher rate of reoperation than the other 3rd and 4th generation implants examined, even when controlling for study follow-up duration. The fixed bearing Salto Talaris had statistically significantly better survival rate than the mobile bearing Salto. These findings are important to physicians when considering implants for total ankle arthroplasty.
first_indexed 2024-03-08T20:02:25Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c8fd95261ea045418d4e58a55a072b2f
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2473-0114
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-08T20:02:25Z
publishDate 2023-12-01
publisher SAGE Publishing
record_format Article
series Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
spelling doaj.art-c8fd95261ea045418d4e58a55a072b2f2023-12-23T16:04:37ZengSAGE PublishingFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics2473-01142023-12-01810.1177/2473011423S00163Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total AnkleWilliam Newton BSJoshua L. Morningstar BSElizabeth K. Nadeau MDTrevor D. Ottofaro MDChristopher E. Gross MDDaniel Scott MDCategory: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: With the increasing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) literature, there is a need to further examine the outcomes across a wide variety of implants. The purpose of this study is to review the existing literature and identify trends among current individual TAA implants. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE for all articles published between 1996 and 2021 was conducted with a minimum two-year mean follow-up. Two reviewers evaluated each study to determine whether it was eligible for inclusion and abstracted the data of interest. Meta-analytic pooling of group results across studies was performed, examining for individual implant survival and component failure. Seventy-three implant groups met inclusion criteria (3rd and 4th generation implants only), composed of STAR (20), Salto (mobile bearing) (10), Salto Talaris (11), Hintegra (8), Zimmer (6), INBONE II (6), INBONE I (4), Infinity (4), Cadence (4). 41 groups (56.2%) were implanted with mobile bearing devices and 32 (43.8%) with fixed bearing implants. In total, 6498 subjects were included with a mean age of 61.77 years and mean BMI of 28.5 kg/m 2 . At mean follow-up of 62.2 months, the overall reoperation rate was 21.13% and metal component revision rate was 10.16%. Results: Multivariate analysis of all implants, controlling for follow-up duration, found a statistically significant difference in the metal component survival rate (p=.036) and reoperation rate (p=.007) with the STARs TAAs surviving significantly worse and undergoing reoperation at a significantly higher rate than all other implants. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of metal component revision (p=.768), tibial component failure rate (p=.095), or talar component failure rate (p=.089). Analysis of the Salto Talaris vs Salto found a significant difference in metal component survival rate (Salto=90.68%, Salto Talaris=97.81%; p=.002). Lastly, analysis of the INBONE I vs II implants found INBONE I had a significantly greater rate of revision due to metal component failure (INBONE I=9.8%, INBONE II=3.4%; p=.002). Conclusion: Based on current literature, it appears that the STAR total ankle implant has a statistically significantly lower rate of metal component survival and higher rate of reoperation than the other 3rd and 4th generation implants examined, even when controlling for study follow-up duration. The fixed bearing Salto Talaris had statistically significantly better survival rate than the mobile bearing Salto. These findings are important to physicians when considering implants for total ankle arthroplasty.https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011423S00163
spellingShingle William Newton BS
Joshua L. Morningstar BS
Elizabeth K. Nadeau MD
Trevor D. Ottofaro MD
Christopher E. Gross MD
Daniel Scott MD
Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
title Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle
title_full Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle
title_fullStr Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle
title_full_unstemmed Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle
title_short Increased Metal Component Failure with STAR Total Ankle
title_sort increased metal component failure with star total ankle
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011423S00163
work_keys_str_mv AT williamnewtonbs increasedmetalcomponentfailurewithstartotalankle
AT joshualmorningstarbs increasedmetalcomponentfailurewithstartotalankle
AT elizabethknadeaumd increasedmetalcomponentfailurewithstartotalankle
AT trevordottofaromd increasedmetalcomponentfailurewithstartotalankle
AT christopheregrossmd increasedmetalcomponentfailurewithstartotalankle
AT danielscottmd increasedmetalcomponentfailurewithstartotalankle