Objectives. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of open versus arthroscopic methods of ankle fusion. Methods. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies comparing outcomes of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodesis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Results. We identified one prospective cohort study and 5 retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 286 patients with ankle arthritis. Our analysis showed that open ankle fusion was associated with a lower fusion rate (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13–0.52, P = 0.0002), longer tourniquet time (MD 16.49, 95% CI 9.46–23.41, P<0.00001), and longer length of stay (MD 1.60,95% CI 1.10–2.10, P<0.00001) compared to arthroscopic ankle fusion; however, there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 0.76–7.64, P = 0.14), overall complication rate (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 0.80–2.96, P = 0.20), and operation time (MD 4.09, 95% CI −2.49–10.66, P = 0.22). The between-study heterogeneity was high for tourniquet time but low or moderate for other outcomes. The direction of the effect sizes remains unchanged throughout sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. The best available evidence demonstrates that arthroscopic ankle fusion may be associated with a higher fusion rate, shorter tourniquet time, and shorter length of stay compared to open ankle fusion. We found no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate, overall complication rate, and operation time. The best available evidence is not adequately robust to make definitive conclusions. Long-term results of the comparative efficacy of arthroscopic ankle fusion over open ankle fusion are not currently available. Further high quality randomised controlled trials that are adequately powered are required

Objectives. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of open versus arthroscopic methods of ankle fusion. Methods. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies comparing outcomes of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodesis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Results. We identified one prospective cohort study and 5 retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 286 patients with ankle arthritis. Our analysis showed that open ankle fusion was associated with a lower fusion rate (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13–0.52, P = 0.0002), longer tourniquet time (MD 16.49, 95% CI 9.46–23.41, P<0.00001), and longer length of stay (MD 1.60,95% CI 1.10–2.10, P<0.00001) compared to arthroscopic ankle fusion; however, there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 0.76–7.64, P = 0.14), overall complication rate (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 0.80–2.96, P = 0.20), and operation time (MD 4.09, 95% CI −2.49–10.66, P = 0.22). The between-study heterogeneity was high for tourniquet time but low or moderate for other outcomes. The direction of the effect sizes remains unchanged throughout sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. The best available evidence demonstrates that arthroscopic ankle fusion may be associated with a higher fusion rate, shorter tourniquet time, and shorter length of stay compared to open ankle fusion. We found no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate, overall complication rate, and operation time. The best available evidence is not adequately robust to make definitive conclusions. Long-term results of the comparative efficacy of arthroscopic ankle fusion over open ankle fusion are not currently available. Further high quality randomised controlled trials that are adequately powered are required