Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 10/2017

01-10-2017 | Original Paper

Survival of the Scandinavian total ankle replacement (STAR): results of ten to nineteen years follow-up

Authors: Arno Frigg, Ursula Germann, Martin Huber, Monika Horisberger

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate survival and clinical outcome of the Scandinavian total ankle replacement (STAR) prosthesis after a minimum of ten years up to a maximum of 19 years.

Methods

Fifty STAR prostheses in 46 patients with end stage ankle osteoarthritis operated between 1996 and 2006 by the same surgeon (MH) were included. Minimal follow-up was ten years (median 14.6 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.9-16.4). Clinical (Kofoed score) and radiological assessments were taken before the operation and at one, ten (+2), and 16 (±3) years after implantation. The primary endpoint was defined as exchange of the whole prosthesis or conversion to arthrodesis (def. 1), exchange of at least one metallic component (def. 2), or exchange of any component including the inlay (due to breakage or wear) (def. 3). Survival was estimated according to Kaplan-Meier. Further reoperations related to STAR were also recorded.

Results

The ten year survival rate was (def. 1) 94% (CI 82-98%), (def. 2) 90% (CI, 77-96%), and (def. 3) 78% (CI 64-87%). The 19-year survival rate was (def. 1) 91% (CI 78-97%), (def. 2) 75% (CI 53-88%), and (def. 3) 55% (CI 34-71%). Considering any re-operations related to STAR, 52% (26/50) of prostheses were affected by re-operations. Mean pre-operative Kofoed score was 49, which improved to 84 after one year (n = 50), to 90 after ten years (n = 46), and to 89 after 16 years (n = 28).

Conclusions

The survival rate for def. 1 and 2 was high. However, re-operations occurred in 52% of all STAR prosthesis.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study, evidence Level 4.
Literature
1.
Daniels TR, Mayich DJ, Penner MJ (2015) Intermediate to long-term outcomes of total ankle replacement with the Scandinavian total ankle replacement (STAR). J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(11):895–903
2.
Brunner S, Barg A, Knupp M, Zwicky L, Kapron AL, Valderrabano V, Hintermann B (2013) The Scandinavian Total ankle replacement. Long-term, eleven to fifteen-year, survivorship analysis of the prosthesis in seventy-two consecutive patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(8):711–718
3.
Kerkhoff YR, Kosse NM, Metsaars WP, Louwerens JW (2016) Long-term functional and radiographic outcome of a mobile bearing ankle prosthesis. Foot Ankle Int. 37(12):1292–1302CrossRefPubMed
4.
Henricson A, Nilsson J, Carlsson A (2011) 10-year survival of total ankle arthroplasties: a report on 780 cases from the Swedish ankle register. Acta Orthop 82(6):655–659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Brun JG, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O (2007) 257 ankle arthroplasties performed in Norway between 1994 and 2005. Acta Orthop 78(5):575–583CrossRefPubMed
6.
Anderson T, Montgomery F, Carlsson A (2003) Uncemented STAR Total ankle prostheses. Three to eight-year follow-up of fifty-one consecutive ankles. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:1321–1329CrossRefPubMed
7.
Haddad SL, Coetzee JC, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Nalysnyk L (2007) Intermediate and long-term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. A systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(9):1899–1905PubMed
8.
Jastifer JR, Coughlin MJ (2015) Long-term follow-up of mobile bearing total ankle arthroplasty in the United States. Foot Ankle Int 36(2):143–150
9.
Wood PL, Prem H, Sutton C (2008) Total ankle replacement: medium-term results in 200 Scandinavian total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 90(5):605–609CrossRef
10.
Kofoed H, Lundberg-Jensen A (1999) Ankle Arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 50 years: a prospective series with long-term follow-up. Foot Ankle Int 20(8):501–506CrossRefPubMed
11.
Henricson A, Skoog A, Carlsson A (2007) The Swedish ankle arthroplasty register: an analxsis of 531 arthroplasties between 1993 and 2005. Acta Orthop 78(5):569–574CrossRefPubMed
12.
Mann JA, Mann RA, Horton E (2011) STAR ankle: long-term results. Foot Ankle Int 32(5):473–484CrossRef
13.
Krause F, Windolf M, Bora B, Penner M, Wing K, Youner A (2011) Impact of complications in total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis analyzed with a validated outcome measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(9):830–839
14.
Doets H, Brand R, Nelissen R (2006) Total ankle Arthroplasty in inflammatory joint disease with use of two mobile-bearing designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(6):1272–1284PubMed
15.
SooHoo NF, Zingmond DS, Ko CY (2007) Comparison of reoperation rates following ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(10):2143–2149
16.
Daniels TR, Younger AS, Penner M, Wing K, Dryden PJ, Wong H, Glazebrook M (2014) Intermediate-term results of total ankle replacement and arthrodesis: a COFAS multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(2):135–142CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hobson SA, Karantana A, Dhar S (2009) Total ankle replacement in patients with significant pre-operative deformity oft he hindfoot. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91(4):481–486CrossRef
18.
Stengel D, Bauwens K, Ekkernkamp A, Cramer J (2005) Efficacy of total ankle replacement with meniscal-bearing devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(2):109–119CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wood PL, Sutton C, Mishra V, Suneja R (2009) A randomised, controlled trial of two mobile-bearing total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91-B:69–74CrossRef
20.
Henricson A, Carlsson Å (2015) Survival analysis oft he single- and double-coated STAR ankle up to 20 years: long term follow-up of 324 cases from the Swedish ankle registry. Foot Ankle Int 36(10):1156–1160
21.
Kofoed H (2004) Scandinavian Total ankle replacements (STAR). Clin Orthop Relat Res 424:73–79CrossRef
22.
Wood PL, Deakin S (2003) Total ankle replacement: the results in 200 ankles. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 85-B:334–341CrossRef
23.
Nunley JA, Caputo AM, Easley ME, Cook C (2012) Intermediate to long-term outcomes of the STAR total ankle replacement: the patient perspective. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(1):43–48
24.
Skyttä ET, Koivu H, Eskelinen A, Ikävalko M, Paavolainen P, Remes V (2010) Total anklereplacement: a population-basedstudyof 515 cases from the Finnish arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 81(1):114–118
25.
Karantana A, Hobson S, Dhar S (2010) The Scandinavian total ankle replacement: survivorship at 5 and 8 years comparable to other series. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(4):951–957
26.
Bonnin M, Gaudot F, Laurent JR, Ellis S, Colombier JA, Judet T (2011) The Salto total ankle arthroplasty: survivorship and analysis of failures at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):225–236CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kofoed H, Stürüp J (1994) Comparison of ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis. A prospective series with long-term follow-up. Foot 4:6–9CrossRef
28.
Zhao H, Yang Y, Yu G, Zhou J (2011) A systematic review of outcome and failure rate of uncemented Scandinavian total ankle replacement. Int Orthop 35(12):1751–1758CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Survival of the Scandinavian total ankle replacement (STAR): results of ten to nineteen years follow-up
Authors
Arno Frigg
Ursula Germann
Martin Huber
Monika Horisberger
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3583-2

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

International Orthopaedics 10/2017 Go to the issue

Orthopaedic Heritage

History of club-foot treatment; part II: tenotomy in the nineteenth century

Original Paper

Case series of patients with pathological dyaphiseal fractures from metastatic bone disease

Original Paper

Clinical and radiological outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with failed deltoid or latissimus dorsi transfers. A review of ten cases

Original Paper

Survivorship of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy in the elderly: two to ten years of follow up

Original Paper

Tensile strength of the pullout repair technique for the medial meniscus posterior root tear: a porcine study

Review Article

Risk factors for infectious complications after open fractures; a systematic review and meta-analysis