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.     

Radiotherapy-specific interprofessional learning through simulation

IntroductionInterprofessional learning (IPL) is a vital aspect of training in radiation oncology professions, yet is rarely delivered to those professionals who work most closely together in clinical practice. Scenario-based learning using simulation facilities provides a unique opportunity to facilitate this learning and this project aimed to determine the impact and value of this initiative.MethodsSmall groups comprising post-graduate diploma pre-registration therapeutic radiographers, medical physics trainees and radiation oncology registrars were challenged with 4 plausible and challenging radiotherapy scenarios within an academic simulation centre. Pre- and post-event completion of the “Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale” measured impact and a Likert-style survey gathered feedback from participants.ResultsThe session increased participants' teamwork and collaboration skills as well as strengthening professional identities. Participants reported high levels of enjoyment related to collaborative working, communication and observing other professionals deploying their technical skills and specialist knowledge.ConclusionAlthough beneficial, simulated scenarios offering equal opportunities for engagement across the professions are challenging to plan and timetabling issues between the 3 groups present significant difficulties. The safe environment and unique opportunity for these groups to learn together was particularly well received and future oncology-specific simulated scenario sessions are planned with larger cohorts.Implications for practiceSimulated scenario training can be used to improve team working across the radiotherapy interprofessional team and may have wider use in other specialist interdisciplinary team development.