Ankle Osteoarthritis^[∗]

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by a chronic, progressive and irreversible degradation of the joint surface associated with joint inflammation. The main etiology of ankle OA is post-traumatic and its prevalence is higher among young and obese people. Despite advances in the treatment of fractures around the ankle, the overall risk of developing post-traumatic ankle OA after 20 years is almost 40%, especially in Weber type B and C bimalleolar fractures and in fractures involving the posterior tibial border. In talus fractures, this prevalence approaches 100%, depending on the severity of the lesion and the time of follow-up. In this context, the current understanding of the molecular signaling pathways involved in senescence and chondrocyte apoptosis is fundamental. The treatment of ankle OA is staged and guided by the classification systems and local and patient conditions. The main problems are the limited ability to regenerate articular cartilage, low blood supply, and a shortage of progenitor stem cells.

The present update summarizes recent scientific evidence of post-traumatic ankle OA with a major focus on changes of the synovia, cartilage and synovial fluid; as well as the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical implications, treatment options and potential targets for therapeutic agents.

Keywords

osteoarthritis - ankle - cartilage - synovial fluid - therapeutics

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a syndrome characterized by articular cartilage degeneration, subchondral bone changes, intra-articular inflammation and periarticular bone growth, often associated with typical symptoms of stiffness, swelling and pain in the affected joint.[1] [2] [3] [4] An effective cure for this syndrome is still far away, be it through prevention methods, delaying its progression or proposed symptomatic treatments.[1] [2] [3] [5] [6]

Lower limbs OA affects ∼ 15% of the world population, and it is a major cause of disability, since global estimates suggest that 250 million people are currently affected; in the United States, ∼ 60 billion dollars/year are spent on its direct treatment.[1] [7] [8] Tibiotarsal joint OA is present in 1 to 4% of patients seeking orthopedic care due to lower limbs OA; the average age of patients at the final stage of the condition is 55.7 years. The socioeconomic impact of the disease increased along with its 300% prevalence elevation between the 1970s and the 2000s.[9]

In contrast to OA in other lower limb joints, such as the hip and the knee, which have primary and nontraumatic origin in 58% and 67% of the cases, respectively, this etiology represents only 9% of the tibiotarsal OA cases. Other secondary causes, including rheumatoid arthritis, hemochromatosis, hemophilia or osteonecrosis, are present in 13% of the cases; post-traumatic origin is the main cause, representing ∼ 78% of etiologies, due to ankle fractures, ligament injuries, distal tibial fractures, tibial shaft fractures, talus fractures and combined fractures of the ankle and foot.[8] [9] [10]

Pathophysiology of post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis

The ankle is a high congruence and stability joint, receiving high contact forces along a very thin layer of articular cartilage. This chondral structure has unique features, including more crosslinked glycosaminoglycans and fewer collagenase and interleukin (IL)-1 receptors (IL-1R) than other types of joint cartilage, which provides high rigidity and tensile strength.[11] [12] As such, a change in joint congruence must occur for post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis (OAPTT) to develop, leading to increased shear forces and accelerated degeneration.

The total area of the tibiotarsal joint is 350 mm², which is subjected to ∼ 500 N of axial force; for comparison, the hip and knee, with joint areas of 1,100 mm² and 1,120 mm², respectively, are subjected to the same amount of force.[13] [14] [15] Thus, the pressure on the ankle joint cartilage can be up to three times greater than in other lower limb joints. The tibiotarsal cartilage thickness ranges from 1.0 to 1.62 mm, being thinner compared to the hip (1.35 to 2.0 mm) and the knee (1.69 to 2.55 mm).[16]

An acute ankle injury initiates a sequence of events in the joint milieu that can potentially lead to progressive joint surface damage in addition to direct injury to chondrocytes at the time of trauma. An increase in proinflammatory cytokines, with proteoglycan and collagen remodeling dysregulation, may play an important role in the pathogenesis of post-traumatic OA.[17] [18] [19] This can be explained by the articular cartilage limited recovery ability from a direct injury; moreover, an amplified inflammatory response of the synovial tissue is a key factor in the development of OAPTT.[20]

Recent studies have focused separately on different tissues, that is, cartilage, synovial tissue and synovial fluid. Researchers led by Adams demonstrated acute changes in the synovial fluid after an intra-articular ankle fracture. Elevation of proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, IL-8, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-9 and MMP-10 can be seen within hours after a trauma. These elevations are sustained for the subacute period; in addition, an increase in other cytokines (IL-1Ra, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-15 and monocyte chemoattractant protein [MCP]-1) are observed 6 months after the injury.[21] [22] [23] [24]

Clinical diagnosis, classification systems and supplementary investigation

In this scenario, pain is the dominant symptom and constitutes the main factor in the therapeutic decision-making process.[1] The most common clinical presentation is joint line pain associated or not with swelling (joint effusion), limited joint range of motion, and reduced locomotor function both in work-related and leisure activities.[25] Other associated clinical changes are leg muscle hypotrophy and gait pattern alterations, mainly in kinematics and kinetics.[26] [27] [28] [29] The initial imaging investigation is performed with radiographs under load that can show different degrees of decreased joint space, formation of osteophytes, sclerosis and subchondral cysts.

The most used classification systems are the following: Kellgren-Lawrence Arthritis Grading Scale, Takakura Classification System, Morrey and Wiedeman Classification, and Classification of Osteoarthritic Changes in the Ankle (van Dijk) ([Box 1])[30] [31]

Box 1

The Kellgren-Lawrence Arthritis Grading Scale

0 - no detectable osteoarthritis

1 - doubtful narrowing of the joint space, possible osteophyte

2 - defined osteophytes, definitive narrowing of the joint space

3 - multiple osteophytes, joint space narrowing, some sclerosis

3 - large osteophytes, marked joint space narrowing, severe sclerosis.

Takakura classification system

I - early sclerosis and osteophytes formation, no joint narrowing.

II - medial joint space narrowing, no subchondral bone contact.

IIIA - medial joint space obliteration, subchondral bone contact.

IIIB - articular space obliteration over the talar domus, subchondral bone contact.

IV - joint space obliteration with complete bone contact.

Morrey and Wiedeman classification

0 - normal ankle.

1 - small osteophytes and minimal joint narrowing.

2 - moderate osteophytes and moderate joint narrowing.

3 - significant joint narrowing with joint deformation or fusion.

Classification of osteoarthritic changes in the ankle (van Dijk)

0 - normal joint or subcentral sclerosis.

I - osteophytes with no joint space narrowing.

II - joint space narrowing with or without osteophytes.

III - (sub)total joint disappearance or joint space deformation.

Claessen et al evaluated the reliability of the (1) van Dijk, (2) Kellgren and (3) Takakura classification systems for post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis and found a low grade of interobserver agreement.[31]

The most appropriate diagnostic modality for early OA detection in younger patients is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). New techniques, such as cartilage mapping, are capable of detecting early changes in cartilaginous microstructure, extracellular matrix composition and chondrocyte biomechanics. T1ρ mapping is an important modality for assessing proteoglycan content,[32] while collagen organization is appreciated in T2 relaxation times.[33] T2 mapping has reduced sensitivity to assess deep cartilage layers, since their highly organized structural properties result in extremely short T2 relaxation times. As such, Ultrashort Echo Time (UTE) - T2 is more sensitive for accurately determining collagen integrity and cartilage degeneration.[34] [35] [36]

Single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT-CT) has been used in OAPTT patients to assess the extension of degenerative changes and their biological activities.[37] This imaging modality combines bone scan and immunoassay data with CT and demonstrated significantly greater inter- and intraobserver reliability compared to isolated CT or CT with bone scan.[38] In addition, SPECT-CT allows the accurate checking of mechanical misalignment effects on the cartilage. Ankles with varus deformities showed significantly higher radioisotope uptake in the medial joint compartment compared to the lateral compartment. In contrast, valgus ankles showed significantly higher uptake in lateral areas.[39] [40] Computed tomography under load is an innovation in the ankle and foot field and it has shown great accuracy for diagnosis, planning and post-treatment control of ankle osteoarthritis.[41]

Biomarkers

Biomarkers are released in different body fluids after an acute fracture and can be quantified by gene expression analysis.[42] [43] As OA is an inflammatory process, inflammation biomarkers can be the first signs of OAPTT. Biomarkers can be measured in blood, urine and synovial fluid. Although tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), IL-1 and some MMPs have been studied, the best marker is not yet established[.44] Collagen II precursors and metabolites are more specific markers of chondrocyte metabolism and may indicate necrosis or apoptosis of such cells.[45] However, a biomarker systematization to provide prognostic information for monitoring the clinical response to OAPTT treatments is still lacking.

Staged Treatment

The therapeutic decision must be based on the following factors:

• Intensity of joint degeneration

• Osteoarthritis etiology

• Affected joint area – asymmetric OA

• Bone quality

• Lower limb alignment

• Joint stability

• Medical history

• Condition of the patient (total arthroplasty x ankle arthrodesis)

• Experience of the surgeon

In addition, it must consider the four proposed treatment stages:

1. Nonsurgical treatment

2. Joint-sparing surgery

3. Total ankle arthroplasty

4. Ankle arthrodesis

Stage I. Nonsurgical treatment - It represents the therapeutic option for patients with initial osteoarthritis and mild, nondaily pain, with little functional limitation, good bone quality, adequate lower limb alignment, stable joint and any age group. Its goals are to improve symptoms and maintain the range of motion for a potential future surgical treatment.[10]

Orthotics and insoles

Orthotics and insoles reposition the joint, align the mechanical axis of the lower limb and correct minor changes in physiological alignment, resulting in symptomatic improvement. There is no evidence in the literature regarding clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up times.[46] [47] [48]

Physical Therapy

The literature on knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation presents good level I and II studies. However, randomized clinical studies are still required to improve evidence regarding the real role of physical therapy for articular degeneration in other joints, including the hip, hand, foot, ankle, shoulder and spine.[49]

In mild and moderate OAPTT, physical therapy helps preserving the range of motion because it increases joint stability through muscle strengthening; this is a useful feature even for future treatments through total ankle arthroplasty.[9]

Medication

Despite the high prevalence of OAPTT, there is little clinical evidence on the impact of drug treatment, since the existing literature is based on studies with small sample sizes and methodological limitations. Guidelines for drug use in foot and ankle conditions are generally extrapolated from studies in other lower limb joints. Low-dose acetaminophen and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are considered adjuvant for pain treatment. In case of failure, oral NSAIDs or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors can be added to this first line of therapy.[50]

Intra-articular injections

Evidence on steroid injections for ankle osteoarthritis is limited to four case series, totaling 298 people, with positive symptomatic responses to triamcinolone and betamethasone consisting in partial reductions of average visual analog scale (VAS) values for pain in 35% of patients.[51]

Nineteen studies present evidence on viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid (HA), including 11 case series, totaling ∼ 400 patients. Positive symptomatic responses based on pain and mobility scores, VAS and SF-36 were observed in 68% of the patients. Most studies have found significant benefits from 6 to 18 months.[46] [47] [48]

Evidence on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is based on case series totaling 45 subjects with unsatisfactory or partial responses at VAS for pain, Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) ankle/hindfoot scale and the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire (SAFE-Q).[33] [34] [35]

Stage II. Joint-sparing surgery - This is a therapeutic option for patients with moderate osteoarthritis, significant, daily pain, small to moderate functional limitation, post-traumatic or primary etiology, good bone quality and asymmetric alignment of the lower limbs associated or not with joint instability; it is mostly indicated for young people and patients with no systemic comorbidities.

Its goals are to reestablish joint biomechanics, alignment and stability, in addition to slow down joint degeneration evolution at the most affected compartment, allowing postponement of more invasive procedures for 5 to 10 years.[10]

Articular debridement and distraction

Nonsparing procedures may not be the treatment of choice, especially in younger patients with moderate OAPTT, due to the potential for late complications and the high rates of reoperation, prosthesis failures and/or the development of secondary OA in adjacent joints.

Such patients may be submitted to open or arthroscopic debridement to relief symptoms and provide a better joint assessment[.52]

Joint distraction is a viable treatment option for selected patients with OAPTT and preserved hindfoot mobility[.53] The current literature does not demonstrate superior outcomes for these modalities in comparison to other joint sparing procedures.

Herrera-Perez et al demonstrated some different outcomes in a prospective, randomized study comparing isolated joint debridement and joint debridement associated with distraction. These authors observed that patients undergoing isolated debridement had a higher level of pain at the 3-year follow-up compared with the group submitted to the combined procedure. Both treatment options can help delay the need for nonsparing procedures (arthrodesis or arthroplasty).[54] [55]

Osteotomies around the ankle

The role of supramalleolar osteotomies is based on force rebalancing in the ankle joint; these procedures aim to realign the hindfoot, transfer the joint support axis to the less degenerate compartment and normalize the direction of the sural triceps force vector to delay ankle joint arthritis progression.[56] [57] [58]

The principles of supramalleolar osteotomy are the following:

1. To locate the deformity apex: the deformity vertex is often close to the joint surface or positioned within the joint; in this situation, correction through the apex may not be possible. Corrections made outside the proper level result in distal fragment translation. As such,

   • wedge osteotomies proximal to the apex lead to ankle joint medialization when valgus is corrected

   • wedge osteotomies proximal to the apex lead to ankle lateralization during varus correction

   In these cases, lateral overload on ankles with valgus OA and medial overload on the ankles with varus OA will be sustained, and additional compensatory translation is critical:

   • lateral translation in valgus ankles

   • medial translation in varus ankles

2. To recognize the joint pattern: congruent or incongruous type

3. To perform additional procedures if required

   • sagittal plane correction

   • distal fibula length and orientation adjustment

   • soft tissue balancing

The authors observed encouraging medium-term outcomes after supramalleolar osteotomies in patients with intermediate-staged OAPTT, with significant pain relief and functional hindfoot improvement according to the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, often requiring additional procedures.[56] [57] [58]

Stage III. Total ankle arthroplasty - This is a therapeutic option to address severe osteoarthritis associated with high-intensity daily pain and high functional limitation. It presents better outcomes in young patients with post-traumatic conditions, adequate bone stock, proper lower limbs alignment or mild asymmetry and joint stability who do not present serious systemic comorbidities. This procedure can be indicated for patients with severe OA but not the previously described features; however, in these cases, complication (including infection, dehiscence, residual pain and reduced range of motion) and reoperation rates are high.[59] [60] [61]

Absolute contraindications to total ankle arthroplasty (ATT) include:

• acute or chronic infections, with or without osteomyelitis

• total avascular necrosis of the talus body

Relative contraindications include:

• severe osteoporosis

• bad bone quality

• diabetes mellitus

• smoking

• overweight/obesity

Patients already submitted to ankle prosthesis procedures and presenting with component failure or wear may require a review arthroplasty; however, this is a technically demanding surgery. Painful pseudoarthrosis or vicious arthrodesis consolidation are another specific indication for total ankle replacement.[59]

Modern implants are three-component systems: a talar component, a tibial base component and a modular tibial joint surface. Recent advances related to implant design provide less bone resection, better bone-implant fixation and longer component durability. The procedure can be performed through an anterior or lateral transfibular access route.[59] [60] [61]

Total ankle arthroplasty studies show clinical and pain scores improvement in up to 64% of the cases. Total ankle arthroplasty using modern implants shows success rates of 70 to 90% in 10 years. Although age, body mass index (BMI) and preoperative deformity degree are not associated with higher failure rates, patients with hindfoot arthrodesis presented a significantly higher risk of implant failure ([Figure 1])[59] [60] [61] [62]

Fig. 1 Drawings of total ankle prostheses available in Brazil in lateral (upper column) and anteroposterior (lower column) views. ZENITH / Corin Group, TARIC / ImplanCast, INFINITY / Wrigth Medical, INBONE / Wrigth Medical.

Stage IV. Ankle arthrodesis - Arthrodesis is mainly indicated for cases of severe osteoarthritis, failure of the previous options, high functional limitation, secondary to any etiology, and in patients of any age group.

Total ankle replacement and tibiotarsal arthrodesis are the treatment modalities for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Formerly recognized as the gold standard, ankle arthrodesis was indicated in the vast majority of cases due to its predictable results and lower complication rates. The development of ATT modified this therapeutic decision-making algorithm, demonstrating, at least, better biomechanical and functional outcomes. The increase in movements of adjacent joints during postarthrodesis follow-up, as a form of biomechanical compensation, is not a consensus yet, and these joints may suffer medium- and long-term progressive degeneration.[63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

There are four main differences in the biomechanical function of arthroplasty compared to arthrodesis:

• faster walking speed

• increased forefoot joint range of motion at the sagittal plane

• increased sagittal hindfoot movement

• increased ankle plantar flexion

For mild and moderate deformities, the arthroscopic or mini-open route are safe options; for severe deformities, however, the anterior and lateral transfibular routes are more indicated.[68]

Consolidation rates for these techniques range from 72 to 93%, but nonunion rates in smokers are as high as 54%.[69] The most frequent complications are wound dehiscence, superficial infection and neuroma; review procedures are required in 7 to 9% of cases, regardless of the technique used[.70]

Final Considerations

Ankle OA is a different clinical situation from knee and hip OA, and it is mainly caused by traumatic injuries. The identification of molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in this condition are in focus in the literature. In the near future, the use of intra-articular and systemic medications that modulate the inflammatory joint response will probably play an important role in functional outcomes of fractures around the ankle, preventing even more dramatic results for this OA.

The most affected age group is composed by young adults; treatment is performed in stages and the therapeutic decision is multifactorial. Surgical options have well-defined principles and predictable functional outcomes. Viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid and triamcinolone can be considered for nonsurgical treatment of early ankle OA.

Joint debridement associated or not with distraction represents a safe option for the treatment of stage II ankle OA. In final stages, total ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis are the most appropriate procedures and must be discussed with the patient to make the best therapeutic decision.

^∗ Study performed at the Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology of the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

• Referências

• 1 Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019; 27 ;393(10182): 1745-1759
• 2 Buckwalter JA, Saltzman C, Brown T. The impact of osteoarthritis: implications for research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (427, Suppl) S6-S15
• 3 Division of Adult and Community Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Disponível em: http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/osteoarthritis.htm
• 4 Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG. et al; National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58 (01) 26-35
• 5 Martel-Pelletier J, Boileau C, Pelletier JP, Roughley PJ. Cartilage in normal and osteoarthritis conditions. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2008; 22 (02) 351-384
• 6 de Lange-Brokaar BJ, Ioan-Facsinay A, van Osch GJ. et al. Synovial inflammation, immune cells and their cytokines in osteoarthritis: a review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20 (12) 1484-1499
• 7 Felson DT. The epidemiology of osteoarthritis: prevalence and risk factors. In: Kuettner KE, Goldberg VM. , editors. Osteoarthritis disorders. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1995: 13-24
• 8 Brown TD, Johnston RC, Saltzman CL, Marsh JL, Buckwalter JA. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis: a first estimate of incidence, prevalence, and burden of disease. J Orthop Trauma 2006; 20 (10) 739-744
• 9 Horisberger M, Valderrabano V, Hintermann B. Posttraumatic ankle osteoarthritis after ankle-related fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2009; 23 (01) 60-67
• 10 Valderrabano V, Horisberger M, Russell I, Dougall H, Hintermann B. Etiology of ankle osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (07) 1800-1806
• 11 Michael JM, Golshani A, Gargac S, Goswami T. Biomechanics of the ankle joint and clinical outcomes of total ankle replacement. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2008; 1 (04) 276-294
• 12 Kuettner KE, Cole AA. Cartilage degeneration in different human joints. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005; 13 (02) 93-103
• 13 Chang KV, Hsiao MY, Chen WS, Wang TG, Chien KL. Effectiveness of intra-articular hyaluronic acid for ankle osteoarthritis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94 (05) 951-960
• 14 Kimizuka M, Kurosawa H, Fukubayashi T. Load-bearing pattern of the ankle joint. Contact area and pressure distribution. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1980; 96 (01) 45-49
• 15 Ihn JC, Kim SJ, Park IH. In vitro study of contact area and pressure distribution in the human knee after partial and total meniscectomy. Int Orthop 1993; 17 (04) 214-218
• 16 Brown TD, Shaw DT. In vitro contact stress distributions in the natural human hip. J Biomech 1983; 16 (06) 373-384
• 17 Anderson DD, Chubinskaya S, Guilak F. et al. Post-traumatic osteoarthritis: improved understanding and opportunities for early intervention. J Orthop Res 2011; 29 (06) 802-809
• 18 Olson SA, Guilak F. From articular fracture to posttraumatic arthritis: a black box that needs to be opened. J Orthop Trauma 2006; 20 (10) 661-662
• 19 Delco ML, Kennedy JG, Bonassar LJ, Fortier LA. Post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the ankle: A distinct clinical entity requiring new research approaches. J Orthop Res 2017; 35 (03) 440-453
• 20 Tochigi Y, Buckwalter JA, Martin JA. et al. Distribution and progression of chondrocyte damage in a whole-organ model of human ankle intra-articular fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (06) 533-539
• 21 Adams SB, Setton LA, Bell RD. et al. Inflammatory Cytokines and Matrix Metalloproteinases in the Synovial Fluid After Intra-articular Ankle Fracture. Foot Ankle Int 2015; 36 (11) 1264-1271
• 22 Adams SB, Leimer EM, Setton LA. et al. Inflammatory Microenvironment Persists After Bone Healing in Intra-articular Ankle Fractures. Foot Ankle Int 2017; 38 (05) 479-484
• 23 Adams SB, Reilly RM, Huebner JL, Kraus VB, Nettles DL. Time-Dependent Effects on Synovial Fluid Composition During the Acute Phase of Human Intra-articular Ankle Fracture. Foot Ankle Int 2017; 38 (10) 1055-1063
• 24 Godoy-Santos AL, Ranzoni L, Teodoro WR. et al. Increased cytokine levels and histological changes in cartilage, synovial cells and synovial fluid after malleolar fractures. Injury 2017; 48 (Suppl. 04) S27-S33
• 25 Saltzman CL, Zimmerman MB, O'Rourke M, Brown TD, Buckwalter JA, Johnston R. Impact of comorbidities on the measurement of health in patients with ankle osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (11) 2366-2372
• 26 Valderrabano V, von Tscharner V, Nigg BM. et al. Lower leg muscle atrophy in ankle osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res 2006; 24 (12) 2159-2169
• 27 Thomas R, Daniels TR, Parker K. Gait analysis and functional outcomes following ankle arthrodesis for isolated ankle arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (03) 526-535
• 28 Nüesch C, Huber C, Pagenstert G, von Tscharner V, Valderrabano V. Muscle activation of patients suffering from asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis during isometric contractions and level walking - a time-frequency analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2012; 22 (06) 939-946
• 29 Nüesch C, Valderrabano V, Huber C, von Tscharner V, Pagenstert G. Gait patterns of asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis patients. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012; 27 (06) 613-618
• 30 Morrey BF, Wiedeman Jr GP. Complications and long-term results of ankle arthrodeses following trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980; 62 (05) 777-784
• 31 Claessen FM, Meijer DT, van den Bekerom MP. et al. Reliability of classification for post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (04) 1332-1337
• 32 Akella SV, Regatte RR, Gougoutas AJ. et al. Proteoglycan-induced changes in T1rho-relaxation of articular cartilage at 4T. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46 (03) 419-423
• 33 Menezes NM, Gray ML, Hartke JR, Burstein D. T2 and T1rho MRI in articular cartilage systems. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51 (03) 503-509
• 34 Williams A, Qian Y, Bear D, Chu CR. Assessing degeneration of human articular cartilage with ultra-short echo time (UTE) T2* mapping. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18 (04) 539-546
• 35 Welsch GH, Mamisch TC, Hughes T. et al. In vivo biochemical 7.0 Tesla magnetic resonance: preliminary results of dGEMRIC, zonal T2, and T2* mapping of articular cartilage. Invest Radiol 2008; 43 (09) 619-626
• 36 Chu CR, Williams AA, West RV. et al. Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging UTE-T2* Mapping of Cartilage and Meniscus Healing After Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (08) 1847-1856
• 37 Barg A, Pagenstert GI, Hügle T. et al. Ankle osteoarthritis: etiology, diagnostics, and classification. Foot Ankle Clin 2013; 18 (03) 411-426
• 38 Pagenstert GI, Barg A, Leumann AG. et al. SPECT-CT imaging in degenerative joint disease of the foot and ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (09) 1191-1196
• 39 Knupp M, Pagenstert GI, Barg A, Bolliger L, Easley ME, Hintermann B. SPECT-CT compared with conventional imaging modalities for the assessment of the varus and valgus malaligned hindfoot. J Orthop Res 2009; 27 (11) 1461-1466
• 40 Nathan M, Mohan H, Vijayanathan S, Fogelman I, Gnanasegaran G. The role of 99mTc-diphosphonate bone SPECT/CT in the ankle and foot. Nucl Med Commun 2012; 33 (08) 799-807
• 41 Godoy-Santos AL, Cesar C. ; WEIGHT-BEARING CT INTERNATIONAL STUDY GROUP. Weight-bearing CT International study group. Weight-bearing computed tomography of the foot and ankle: an update and future directions. Acta Ortop Bras 2018; 26 (02) 135-139
• 42 Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury 2011; 42 (06) 551-555
• 43 Förster Y, Gao W, Demmrich A, Hempel U, Hofbauer LC, Rammelt S. Monitoring of the first stages of bone healing with microdialysis. Acta Orthop 2013; 84 (01) 76-81
• 44 Harkey MS, Luc BA, Golightly YM. et al. Osteoarthritis-related biomarkers following anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 (01) 1-12
• 45 Catterall JB, Stabler TV, Flannery CR, Kraus VB. Changes in serum and synovial fluid biomarkers after acute injury (NCT00332254). Arthritis Res Ther 2010; 12 (06) R229
• 46 Huang YC, Harbst K, Kotajarvi B. et al. Effects of ankle-foot orthoses on ankle and foot kinematics in patient with ankle osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87 (05) 710-716
• 47 Chevalier TL, Chockalingam N. Foot orthoses: a review focusing on kinematics. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2011; 101 (04) 341-348
• 48 Tezcan ME, Goker B, Lidtke R, Block JA. Long-term effects of lateral wedge orthotics on hip and ankle joint space widths. Gait Posture 2017; 51: 36-40
• 49 Collins NJ, Hart HF, Mills KAG. Osteoarthritis year in review 2018: rehabilitation and outcomes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 (03) 378-391
• 50 Paterson KL, Gates L. Clinical Assessment and Management of Foot and Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Review of Current Evidence and Focus on Pharmacological Treatment. Drugs Aging 2019; 36 (03) 203-211
• 51 Vannabouathong C, Del Fabbro G, Sales B. et al. Intra-articular Injections in the Treatment of Symptoms from Ankle Arthritis: A Systematic Review. Foot Ankle Int 2018; 39 (10) 1141-1150
• 52 Dawe EJ, Jukes CP, Ganesan K, Wee A, Gougoulias N. Ankle arthroscopy to manage sequelae after ankle fractures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (11) 3393-3397
• 53 Bernstein M, Reidler J, Fragomen A, Rozbruch SR. Ankle distraction arthroplasty: indications, technique, and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017; 25 (02) 89-99
• 54 Herrera-Perez M, Alrashidi Y, Galhoum AE, Kahn TL, Valderrabano V, Barg A. Debridement and hinged motion distraction is superior to debridement alone in patients with ankle osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (09) 2802-2812
• 55 Valderrabano V, Hintermann B, Horisberger M, Fung TS. Ligamentous posttraumatic ankle osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (04) 612-620
• 56 Knupp M. The Use of Osteotomies in the Treatment of Asymmetric Ankle Joint Arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 2017; 38 (02) 220-229
• 57 Knupp M, Hintermann B. Treatment of asymmetric arthritis of the ankle joint with supramalleolar osteotomies. Foot Ankle Int 2012; 33 (03) 250-252
• 58 Knupp M, Stufkens SA, Bolliger L, Barg A, Hintermann B. Classification and treatment of supramalleolar deformities. Foot Ankle Int 2011; 32 (11) 1023-1031
• 59 Barg A, Wimmer MD, Wiewiorski M, Wirtz DC, Pagenstert GI, Valderrabano V. Total ankle replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015; 112 (11) 177-184
• 60 Rajapakshe S, Sutherland JM, Wing K. et al. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for End-Stage Ankle Arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 2019; 40 (10) 1129-1139
• 61 Escudero MI, Le V, Barahona M. et al. Total Ankle Arthroplasty Survival and Risk Factors for Failure. Foot Ankle Int 2019; 40 (09) 997-1006
• 62 Cody EA, Bejarano-Pineda L, Lachman JR. et al. Risk Factors for Failure of Total Ankle Arthroplasty With a Minimum Five Years of Follow-up. Foot Ankle Int 2019; 40 (03) 249-258
• 63 Flavin R, Coleman SC, Tenenbaum S, Brodsky JW. Comparison of gait after total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 2013; 34 (10) 1340-1348
• 64 Hahn ME, Wright ES, Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Ledoux WR, Sangeorzan BJ. Comparative gait analysis of ankle arthrodesis and arthroplasty: initial findings of a prospective study. Foot Ankle Int 2012; 33 (04) 282-289
• 65 Piriou P, Culpan P, Mullins M, Cardon JN, Pozzi D, Judet T. Ankle replacement versus arthrodesis: a comparative gait analysis study. Foot Ankle Int 2008; 29 (01) 3-9
• 66 Rouhani H, Favre J, Aminian K, Crevoisier X. Multi-segment foot kinematics after total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis during relatively long-distance gait. Gait Posture 2012; 36 (03) 561-566
• 67 Seo SG, Kim EJ, Lee DJ, Bae KJ, Lee KM, Lee DY. Comparison of Multisegmental Foot and Ankle Motion Between Total Ankle Replacement and Ankle Arthrodesis in Adults. Foot Ankle Int 2017; 38 (09) 1035-1044
• 68 Woo BJ, Lai MC, Ng S, Rikhraj IS, Koo K. Clinical outcomes comparing arthroscopic vs open ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Surg 2019 Jun 20. pii: S1268-7731(19)30100-6
• 69 Steginsky BD, Suhling ML, Vora AM. Ankle Arthrodesis With Anterior Plate Fixation in Patients at High Risk for Nonunion. Foot Ankle Spec 2019; 21: 1938640019846968
• 70 Yasui Y, Vig KS, Murawski CD, Desai P, Savage-Elliott I, Kennedy JG. Open Versus Arthroscopic Ankle Arthrodesis: A Comparison of Subsequent Procedures in a Large Database. J Foot Ankle Surg 2016; 55 (04) 777-781

Publication History

Received: 14 July 2019

Accepted: 10 January 2020

Article published online:
29 May 2020