{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03146374829001368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02667578659370725, 'mean_word_length': 5.132075471698113, '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}}
Reoperation Profile of Lateral vs Anterior Approach Ankle Arthroplasty

Background: The operative procedure for a total ankle replacement (TAR) is intimately associated with the prosthetic design. The anterior and lateral approaches both have pros and cons regarding their respective soft tissue complications, osteotomy requirements, orientation of the bone cut, and gutter visualization. Although both have been studied independently, few reports have compared both in the same setting. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the difference in reoperation rate after lateral or anterior approach ankle arthroplasty. We hypothesized that the anterior approach had a higher rate of wound complications. Methods: We evaluated data from a single center collected between 2014 and 2017, comprising a total of 115 total ankle replacements performed by 1 of 4 fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeons. Reoperations were recorded as an operative report with classification by Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) Reoperations Coding System (CROCS). The index approach used was determined by the surgeon’s practice preference. Patients were included when they had a primary TAR in the time frame noted and had a complete data set up to at least 2 years after surgery. The cohort comprised 67 anterior and 48 lateral operations with balanced demographics for age (95% CI: 63-67 years) and gender (47% F). The lateral group had more complex cases with higher COFAS type arthritis (more periarticular arthritis and surrounding deformity). Results: Comparing the 2 groups, a total of 40 reoperations (7 anterior [A], 33 lateral [L]) occurred in 27 patients (5 A, 22 L). One patient had 4 related reoperations. The only revision was in the anterior group. The only soft tissue reconstruction was a split-thickness skin graft in the lateral group. Nine reoperations were irrigation debridement related to an infection or wound complication (3 A, 6 L). The majority (19/33) of reoperations in the lateral group were gutter debridement (8) or lateral hardware removal (11). Operative time was statistically different at 145 minutes (95% CI: 127-164 minutes) in anterior TAR and 178 minutes (95% CI: 154-202 minutes) for lateral TAR (P = .0058). The odds ratio of having any reoperation with a lateral approach TAR was 6.19 compared to the anterior group. Conclusion: The results at the 2-year time point demonstrated that there were more reoperations after a lateral approach TAR than an anterior TAR, recognizing the significant case complexity imbalance between the groups and a corresponding relative increase in resource utilization of lateral TAR patients. The 2 implant designs were associated with different reoperation rates, favoring the anterior group. Change in the lateral fixation may have reduced the risk of repeat surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.