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

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

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.

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.