TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL

B Komarasamy; A Best; R Power

doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Article alerts Social media

Current issue

TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL

B Komarasamy
A Best
R Power

TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL

Komarasamy B, Best A, Power R. TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL. Orthop Procs. 2005;87-B(SUPP_III):371-371. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Komarasamy, B, et al. “TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 87-B, no. SUPP_III, 2005, pp. 371-371., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Komarasamy, B., Best, A., & Power, R. (2005). TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 87-B(SUPP_III), 371-371. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Komarasamy, B., Best, A. and Power, R. (2005) “TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 87-B(SUPP_III), pp. 371-371. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Komarasamy, B, A Best, and R Power. “TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 87-B, no. SUPP_III (2005): 371-371. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Komarasamy B, Best A, Power R. TIBIOTALOCALCANEAL FUSION WITH A RETROGRADE INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL. Orthop Procs. 2005 Sep 1;87-B(SUPP_III):371-371. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870371b

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the outcome of tibiotalocalcaneal (TCC) fusion using the retrograde intramedullary nail (IMN).

Method We reviewed clinical and radiological outcome of 42 patients who underwent TTC fusion with a retrograde IMN in a single health region from 1996 to 2003. Out of 42 patients, two patients died of unrelated causes and four patients were lost to follow up. Finally, 36 patients (20 males, 16 females) were followed up. Mean age was 63 years and the follow up averaged 10 months. Degenerative arthritis (primary and post-traumatic) and rheumatoid arthritis made up the majority of the preoperative diagnoses. Clinical outcome was assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle (AOFAS) hindfoot score and with three independent observers reviewing radiographs.

Results Radiologically 17 ankles fused, three probably fused whilst 16 (33%) had evidence of non-union. The majority of subtalar joints failed to unite, reflected by the high rate of distal screw breakage. Primary bone grafting appeared to aid union however smoking, age and the use of an open approach did not seem to be significant factors. Other than non-union complications included two nail fatigue fractures, two deep infections, seven screw breakages, six wound problems and one fractured tibia. Postoperatively the mean AOFAS score was 51, 25 patients were satisfied (of these 50% had radiological non-union) and 19 would undergo the same procedure again.

Conclusion Despite a high rate of ankle and subtalar non-union, most of the patients were satisfied with the procedure and would undergo the same operation again. Technical errors apart, the high rate of complications and non-union probably reflected the advanced nature of the disease process and deformity in this group of patients. Although IMN TTC fusion remains a viable option in the management of concurrent ankle and subtalar joint arthritis, patients should be warned of the potential for non-union and high complication rates.

Correspondence should be addressed to BOFSS, c/o Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust, Hall Lane, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire WN7 9EP.