Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Jayasree Ramaskandhan,
Dr Simon Kometa,
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
© The Author(s) 2021.Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are an integral part of national joint registers in measuring outcomes of operative procedures and improving quality of care. There is lack of literature comparing outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR) to total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR). The aim of this study was to compare PROMs between TAR, TKR, and THR patient groups at 1, 5, and 10 years. Methods: Prospective PROMs from patients who underwent a TAR, TKR, or THR procedure between 2003 and 2010 were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on their index joint replacement (hip, knee, or ankle). Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index), patient-reported outcome scores (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) and patient satisfaction scores (4-point Likert scale) at follow-up were compared between the 3 groups. Results: Data was available on 1797 THR, 2475 TKR, and 146 TAR patients. TAR patients were younger and reported fewer number of comorbidities. All 3 groups improved significantly from preoperative to 10 years for WOMAC scores (P <.001). For SF-36 scores at 10 years, the THR group (32.2% follow-up) scored the highest for 3 domains (P =.031) when compared to the TKR group (29.1% follow-up). All 3 groups had similar outcomes for 5 of 8 domains; P <.05). For patient satisfaction, the THR group reported overall 95.1% satisfaction followed by 89.8% for the TKR group and 83.9% in the TAR group (42.4% follow-up). Conclusion: In this cohort with diminishing numbers over the decade of time the patients were followed up we found that patients are equally happy with functional and general health outcomes from total ankle replacement vs other major lower extremity joint replacement. TAR surgery should be considered as a viable treatment option in this patient group. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective case series.
Author(s): Ramaskandhan J, Smith K, Kometa S, Chockalingam N, Siddique M
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Foot and Ankle Orthopaedics
Print publication date: 01/07/2021
Online publication date: 06/07/2021
Acceptance date: 02/04/2018
Date deposited: 08/11/2021
ISSN (electronic): 2473-0114
Publisher: Sage Publications Inc.
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric