{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02493368700265252, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016976127320954906, 'mean_word_length': 5.393220338983051, '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}}
Trends in surgical management of the infected total ankle arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review of surgical treatment of the infected total ankle arthroplasty. The purpose of this investigation was to describe the current trends and to perform a critical analysis of the evidence reported in the existing literature.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive search for all relevant articles published in English was conducted. Scientific databases were accessed to identify papers dealing with the management of the infected total ankle arthroplasty. We identified and collected every patient that underwent a surgical management of infected ankle arthroplasty. Data extracted were summarized and reported. A descriptive analysis was performed; when possible, a statistical analysis was accomplished.


RESULTS
Thirty-two papers (152 infected ankle arthroplasty) published in the last 20 years were identified. Twenty-seven patients (17.76%) were treated with irrigation and debridement, revision total ankle arthroplasty was performed in 72 cases (47.37%), arthrodesis was performed as a primary treatment in 30 patients (19.74%), 12 patients (7.89%) underwent a spacer arthroplasty while amputation was performed as a primary treatment in 9 patients (5.92%).


CONCLUSIONS
Our study reveals the improvement of the surgical management of the infected total ankle arthroplasty through the last 20 years. Irrigation and debridement and two-stage revision represent the most viable treatment in acute postoperative and late chronic infections respectively. We noted a trend towards maintaining articularity through a two-stage revision. The quality of evidence is weak with biases both in reporting and selection process. High quality randomized controlled trials are required to compare different treatments in order to introduce an evidence-based treatment protocol.