Aims. Postoperative rehabilitation regimens following ankle arthrodesis vary considerably. A systematic review was conducted to determine the evidence for weightbearing recommendations following ankle arthrodesis, and to compare outcomes between different regimens. Patients and Methods. MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes following ankle arthrodesis, in which standardized postoperative rehabilitation regimens were employed. Eligible studies were grouped according to duration of postoperative nonweightbearing: zero to one weeks (group A), two to three weeks (group B), four to five weeks (group C), or six weeks or more (group D). Outcome data were pooled and compared between groups. Outcomes analyzed included union rates, time to union, clinical scores, and complication rates. Results. A total of 60 studies (2426 ankles) were included. Mean union rates for groups A to D were 93.2%, 95.5%, 93.0%, and 93.0%, respectively. Mean time to union was 10.4 weeks, 14.5 weeks, 12.4 weeks, and 14.4 weeks for groups A to D, respectively. Mean complication rates were 22.3%, 23.0%, 27.1%, and 28.7% for groups A to D, respectively. Reporting of outcome scores was insufficient to conduct meaningful analysis. Conclusion. Outcomes following ankle arthrodesis appear to be similar regardless of the duration of postoperative nonweightbearing, although the existing literature is insufficient to make definitive conclusions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1256–1262

Aims

The optimal management of posterior malleolar ankle fractures, a prevalent type of ankle trauma, is essential for improved prognosis. However, there remains a debate over the most effective surgical approach, particularly between screw and plate fixation methods. This study aims to investigate the differences in outcomes associated with these fixation techniques.

Aims

To systematically review qualitative studies of patients with distal tibia or ankle fracture, and explore their experience of injury and recovery.

Aims

To describe outcome reporting variation and trends in non-pharmacological randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of distal tibia and/or ankle fractures.

Introduction. Osteochondral defects of the talus are usually a consequence of trauma. They can cause chronic pain and serious disability. Various interventions, non-surgical and surgical, have been used for treating these defects. The objective of this Cochrane systematic review of randomised control trials is to determine the benefits and harms of the interventions used for treating osteochondral defects of the talus in adults. Methods. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: December 2009. Eligible for inclusion were any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating interventions for treating osteochondral defects of the talus in adults. Our primary outcomes included pain, ankle function, treatment failure (unresolved symptoms or reoperation) and health-related quality of life. Preference was given to validated, patient-reported outcome measures. Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion and, for the included trial, independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Results. One small trial with 15 participants and six months follow-up was included. This trial was published only as a conference abstract, which provided inadequate information to judge the trial's methods and no numerical results. The trial reported that a series of three intra-articular hyaluronan injections started three weeks after arthroscopic microfracture did not improve pain but may have improved one aspect of mobility. There were no available data to check this claim. An important finding of this review is that one allegedly randomised trial, which compared three surgical interventions, was not randomised or quasi-randomised. Upon further clarification from contacting the lead trial author, it became clear that this was a comparative study only. The only other randomised trial found was an ongoing trial with a published protocol. This is studying pulsed electromagnetic fields after arthroscopic treatment for osteochondral defects of the talus. Conclusions. There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to determine which interventions are best for osteochondral defects of the talus in adults. High quality randomised trials are required to guide non-surgical and surgical treatment decisions for these injuries

Clinicians are often asked by patients, “When can I drive again?” after lower limb injury or surgery. This question is difficult to answer in the absence of any guidelines. This review aims to collate the currently available evidence and discuss the factors that influence the decision to allow a patient to return to driving. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched using the following terms: ‘brake reaction time’, ‘brake response time’, ‘braking force’, ‘brake pedal force’, ‘resume driving’, ‘rate of application of force’, ‘driving after injury’, ‘joint replacement and driving’, and ‘fracture and driving’. Of the relevant literature identified, most studies used the brake reaction time and total brake time as the outcome measures. Varying recovery periods were proposed based on the type and severity of injury or surgery. Surveys of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Police, insurance companies in the United Kingdom and Orthopaedic Surgeons offered a variety of opinions. There is currently insufficient evidence for any authoritative body to determine fitness to drive. The lack of guidance could result in patients being withheld from driving for longer than is necessary, or returning to driving while still unsafe. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:290–4

Aims. In approximately 20% of patients with ankle fractures, there is an concomitant injury to the syndesmosis which requires stabilisation, usually with one or more syndesmotic screws. The aim of this review is to evaluate whether removal of the syndesmotic screw is required in order for the patient to obtain optimal functional recovery. Materials and Methods. A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles in which the syndesmotic screw was retained. Articles describing both removal and retaining of syndesmotic screws were included. Excluded were biomechanical studies, studies not providing patient related outcome measures, case reports, studies on skeletally immature patients and reviews. No restrictions regarding year of publication and language were applied. Results. A total of 329 studies were identified, of which nine were of interest, and another two articles were added after screening the references. In all, two randomised controlled trials (RCT) and nine case-control series were found. The two RCTs found no difference in functional outcome between routine removal and retaining the syndesmotic screw. All but one of the case-control series found equal or better outcomes when the syndesmotic screw was retained. However, all included studies had substantial methodological flaws. Conclusions. The currently available literature does not support routine elective removal of syndesmotic screws. However, the literature is of insufficient quality to be able to draw definitive conclusions. Secondary procedures incur a provider and institutional cost and expose the patient to the risk of complications. Therefore, in the absence of high quality evidence there appears to be little justification for routine removal of syndesmotic screws. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1497–1504

Introduction. Surgeons, commissioners and patients are increasingly seeking more in depth details on outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR). We set out to perform a detailed and up to date meta-analysis of the outcomes of TAR, with a focus on PROMS. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Science Citation Index databases using the terms “total”; “ankle”; “arthroplasty” or “replacement” to April 2012. We included all languages; series with greater than 20 TAR; minimum 2 years follow-up. We excluded papers on revisions; prostheses no longer marketed; and kin studies. We worked with the Cochrane Collaboration to adopt their methodology including the creation of a risk profile assessing all forms of bias. Results. Of 1841 papers identified, 51 remained for analysis, with a pool of 6719 patients. The mean patient age was 59.3(17–95) and mean BMI was 28.8(19.4–44). 53% of patients were male. The most common indication was posttraumatic osteoarthritis. The majority of the studies were level IV and more than half the studies had several forms of bias. Intraoperative complication rate was 9%, with medial malleolar fracture (4.4%) being the most common. The pooled mean pre-op VAS was 7.6 which improved to 1.5 at 4–5 years. The mean pre-op AOFAS was 39.7, improving to 79.9 for up-to 10 years. Range-of-motion increased after TAR from 22.8° preoperatively to 33.6° postoperatively. Radiographic abnormalities were found in 22% of cases with a mean follow up of 53 months, of which 7.9% were re-operated upon. Gait velocity, cadence, stride length and power all improve following TAR. Survival at 8–10 years was 89.4%, with a cumulative failure rate of 1.9%. Conclusion. This is the most comprehensive meta-analysis carried out on TAR to date. TAR provides patients with an increased range of motion and improvement postoperative PROMS maintained up to 10 years

Aims

Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) surgery is complex and attracts a wide variety of complications. The literature lacks consistency in reporting adverse events and complications. The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of each of these complications from a literature review, and to compare them with rates from our Unit, to aid clinicians with the process of informed consent.

Charcot neuroarthropathy is a rare but serious complication of diabetes, causing progressive destruction of the bones and joints of the foot leading to deformity, altered biomechanics and an increased risk of ulceration.

Management is complicated by a lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria and an incomplete understanding of the pathogenesis. In this review, we consider recent insights into the development of Charcot neuroarthropathy.

It is likely to be dependent on several interrelated factors which may include a genetic pre-disposition in combination with diabetic neuropathy. This leads to decreased neuropeptides (nitric oxide and calcitonin gene-related peptide), which may affect the normal coupling of bone formation and resorption, and increased levels of Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, potentiating osteoclastogenesis.

Repetitive unrecognized trauma due to neuropathy increases levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor α) which could also contribute to increased bone resorption, in combination with a pre-inflammatory state, with increased autoimmune reactivity and a profile of monocytes primed to transform into osteoclasts - cluster of differentiation 14 (CD14).

Increased blood glucose and loss of circulating Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-Products (AGLEPs), leading to increased non-enzymatic glycation of collagen and accumulation of AGLEPs in the tissues of the foot, may also contribute to the pathological process.

An understanding of the relative contributions of each of these mechanisms and a final common pathway for the development of Charcot neuroarthropathy are still lacking.

Cite this article: S. E. Johnson-Lynn, A. W. McCaskie, A. P. Coll, A. H. N. Robinson. Neuroarthropathy in diabetes: pathogenesis of Charcot arthropathy. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:373–378. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0334.R1.

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of pre-operative skin antisepsis and cleansing techniques in reducing foot and ankle skin flora. The post-preparation culture number (Post-PCN) was the primary outcome. The data were evaluated using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We identified eight trials (560 participants, 716 feet) that met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in the proportions of Post-PCN between hallux nailfold (HNF) and toe web spaces (TWS) sites: 0.47 vs 0.22, respectively (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.182937 to 0.304097; p < 0.0001).

Meta-analyses showed that alcoholic chlorhexidine had better efficacy than alcoholic povidone-iodine (PI) at HNF sites (risk difference 0.19 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30); p = 0.0005); a two-step intervention using PI scrub and paint (S& P) followed by alcohol showed significantly better efficacy over PI (S& P) alone at TWS sites (risk difference 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.24); p = 0.0169); and a two-step intervention using chlorhexidine scrub followed by alcohol showed significantly better efficacy over PI (S& P) alone at the combined (HNF with TWS) sites (risk difference 0.27 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.40); p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between cleansing techniques.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:498–503.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of modern total ankle replacements (TARs) to determine the survivorship, outcome, complications, radiological findings and range of movement, in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) of the ankle who undergo this procedure. We used the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration, which uses risk of bias profiling to assess the quality of papers in favour of a domain-based approach. Continuous outcome scores were pooled across studies using the generic inverse variance method and the random-effects model was used to incorporate clinical and methodological heterogeneity. We included 58 papers (7942 TARs) with an interobserver reliability (Kappa) for selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias of between 0.83 and 0.98. The overall survivorship was 89% at ten years with an annual failure rate of 1.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7 to 1.6). The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score changed from 40 (95% CI 36 to 43) pre-operatively to 80 (95% CI 76 to 84) at a mean follow-up of 8.2 years (7 to 10) (p < 0.01). Radiolucencies were identified in up to 23% of TARs after a mean of 4.4 years (2.3 to 9.6). The mean total range of movement improved from 23° (95% CI 19 to 26) to 34° (95% CI 26 to 41) (p = 0.01).

Our study demonstrates that TAR has a positive impact on patients’ lives, with benefits lasting ten years, as judged by improvement in pain and function, as well as improved gait and increased range of movement. However, the quality of evidence is weak and fraught with biases and high quality randomised controlled trials are required to compare TAR with other forms of treatment such as fusion.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1500–7.