{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017101710171017102, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004500450045004501, 'mean_word_length': 5.212290502793296, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Design Comparison of the INBONE I Versus INBONE II Total Ankle System

Degenerative joint disease of the ankle is a debilitating etiology, in which treatment has been disputed in the literature among healthy active patients. Total ankle arthroplasty had recently gained popularity as long-term outcomes are being reported and advancement in the design of the implants themselves evolves. Multiple implants are available on today’s market including the INBONE (Wright Medical technologies, Arlington, TN) Total Ankle System. The second generation INBONE total ankle arthroplasty was launched and approved for use in the United States by the FDA in 2005. The second generation INBONE implant has a talar sulcus, allowing for a more biomechanically stable articulation between the polyethelene insert and the talar component (Figure 1). The initial INBONE implant had a flat articulation with the poly leading to instability. This paper will help to demonstrate the advantages of INBONE II versus INBONE I Total Ankle System in management of arthrosis of the ankle joint. Level of Evidence: Level V: Expert opinion