12-year survival analysis of 322 Hintegra total ankle arthroplasties from an independent center

Background and purpose — Total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) have larger revision rates than hip and knee implants. We examined the survival rates of our primary TAAs, and what different factors, including the cause of arthritis, affect the success and/or revision rate.Patients and methods — From 2004 to 2016, 322 primary Hintegra TAAs were implanted: the 2nd generation implant from 2004 until mid-2007 and the 3rd generation from late 2007 to 2016. A Cox proportional hazards model evaluated sex, age, primary diagnosis, and implant generation, pre- and postoperative angles and implant position as risk factors for revision.Results — 60 implants (19%) were revised, the majority (n = 34) due to loosening. The 5-year survival rate (95% CI) was 75% (69–82) and the 10-year survival rate was 68% (60–77). There was a reduced risk of revision, per degree of increased postoperative medial distal tibial angle at 0.84 (0.72–0.98) and preoperative talus angle at 0.95 (0.90–1.00), indicating that varus ankles may have a larger revision rate. Generation of implant, sex, primary diagnosis, and most pre- and postoperative radiological angles did not statistically affect revision risk.Interpretation — Our revision rates are slightly above registry rates and well above those of the developer. Most were revised due to loosening; no difference was demonstrated with the 2 generations of implant used. Learning curve and a low threshold for revision could explain the high revision rate.

Arthritis in the ankle often develops earlier than in the hip or knee, and 70% have a traumatic etiology (Saltzman et al. 2005, Brown et al. 2006). Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) can be indicated for severe arthritis in the ankle joint, but the anatomical preconditions, like a small surface area and high stress from compression and torque (Bouguecha et al. 2011, Kakkar and Siddique 2011), makes it less durable than hip and knee prosthetics. The Hintegra TAA, a 3-component mobile bearing, uncemented implant (Hintermann et al. 2004) is widely used and results from the development center demonstrate survival rates of 94% and 84% after 5 and 10 years’ follow-up (Barg et al. 2013). This is considerably more than the survival rates from national registries. Labek et al. (2011) demonstrated that development centers report only half of the revision rate that can be found in the few existing national registers. In a systematic review of primary Agility total ankle arthroplasty (DePuy Synthes Orthopedics, Warsaw, IN, USA), the author (Roukis 2012) found that the incidence of complications increased from 7% to 12%, in studies where the inventor was excluded. Similar results were found by Prissel and Roukis (2013), who found an increased incidence of complications from 6% to 13% in studies where the inventor or faculty consultants were excluded. These studies indicated the risk of selection (inventor) and publication (conflict of interest) bias.Planning and surgical technique, including significant experience, are mandatory for a successful outcome. The better result from development centers may reflect, besides the above-mentioned bias, that there is a long learning curve and that the indication for revision surgery varies.We examined the survival rates of primary Hintegra TAAs performed at Hvidovre Hospital, with revision rate as outcome. We report primary diagnosis for primary TAA and examine whether sex, generation of the implant, preoperative angles and implant position affect the revision rate.     

A Perioperative Care Display for Understanding High Acuity Patients

Background  The data visualization literature asserts that the details of the optimal data display must be tailored to the specific task, the background of the user, and the characteristics of the data. The general organizing principle of a concept-oriented display is known to be useful for many tasks and data types. Objectives  In this project, we used general principles of data visualization and a co-design process to produce a clinical display tailored to a specific cognitive task, chosen from the anesthesia domain, but with clear generalizability to other clinical tasks. To support the work of the anesthesia-in-charge (AIC) our task was, for a given day, to depict the acuity level and complexity of each patient in the collection of those that will be operated on the following day. The AIC uses this information to optimally allocate anesthesia staff and providers across operating rooms. Methods  We used a co-design process to collaborate with participants who work in the AIC role. We conducted two in-depth interviews with AICs and engaged them in subsequent input on iterative design solutions. Results  Through a co-design process, we found (1) the need to carefully match the level of detail in the display to the level required by the clinical task, (2) the impedance caused by irrelevant information on the screen such as icons relevant only to other tasks, and (3) the desire for a specific but optional trajectory of increasingly detailed textual summaries. Conclusion  This study reports a real-world clinical informatics development project that engaged users as co-designers. Our process led to the user-preferred design of a single binary flag to identify the subset of patients needing further investigation, and then a trajectory of increasingly detailed, text-based abstractions for each patient that can be displayed when more information is needed.