Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41460300›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025

Five decades of total ankle replacement: from early failures to fourth-generation innovations and future priorities.

Gabriele Colò, Federico Fusini, Antonio Mazzotti, Cesare Faldini, Massimiliano Leigheb, Michele Francesco Surace

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gabriele ColòSant'Anna Hospital, Como, Italy. gabriele.colo@yahoo.it.
Federico FusiniDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, University of Turin, Via Zuretti 29, 10124, Turin, Italy.
Antonio MazzottiDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna, 40127, Bologna, Italy.
Cesare FaldiniDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna, 40127, Bologna, Italy.
Massimiliano LeighebOrthopaedics and Traumatology Unit, San Gaudenzio Clinic (Monza Polyclinic Group), Via Enrico Bottini 3, 28100, Novara, Italy.
Michele Francesco SuraceSant'Anna Hospital, Como, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal ankle replacement (TAR) has evolved considerably over the past five decades as an alternative to arthrodesis for the management of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. While early TAR designs suffered from high failure rates and limited functional outcomes, subsequent generations have progressively improved implant survivorship and biomechanics. However, determining the optimal prosthesis design for maximizing long-term outcomes remains a challenge, requiring synthesis of analytical performance data and practical guidance for implant selection.

methodsA targeted analytical review of the literature was conducted by analyzing peer-reviewed publications indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering the period from 1970 through July 2025. The search strategy focused on historical development and specifically on design characteristics (fixation, constraint) and their corresponding quantitative outcomes (survivorship, failure rates). Both original studies and systematic reviews were included to assess implant design evolution, materials, fixation techniques, survivorship, and complications. Emphasis was placed on representative implant models from each generation, including dedicated revision systems.

resultsFirst-generation TARs, such as ICLH (Imperial College London Hospital) and Lord models, demonstrated high failure rates, with only 21% of cases rated as clinically satisfactory at 5.5 years due to constrained designs and cement-related issues. Second-generation systems introduced semi-constrained, mobile-bearing implants with cementless fixation, achieving up to 92% survivorship at 12 years. Third-generation designs, including HINTEGRA and BOX, emphasized anatomical congruence, ligament balancing, and soft tissue preservation, with survivorship ranging from 66 to 92% depending on implant model and follow-up. Fourth-generation implants (e.g., INFINITY, CADENCE, QUANTUM and the lateral-approach Trabecular Metal Ankle System) featured minimal bone resection and improved primary stability, reporting 1-2 year survivorship between 92 and 98%; however, complications such as heterotopic ossification (up to 69%) and talar loosening remain concerns. The development of dedicated revision TAR systems like INVISION represents a recent innovation, though long-term data are limited.

conclusionsThe historical analysis demonstrates a clear performance shift tied to specific design attributes. Specifically, fourth-generation fixed-bearing, cementless designs (reporting survival rates up to 98%) have effectively addressed the mechanical failure and cement-related issues common in earlier constrained and mobile-bearing systems. While challenges persist (such as heterotopic ossification and talar loosening), the data analytically support specific implant choices. Therefore, based on documented survivorship and failure profiles, fourth-generation fixed-bearing, cementless systems are recommended as the primary choice in appropriately selected patients.

Indexed as

Ankle JointArthroplasty, Replacement, AnkleJoint ProsthesisOsteoarthritisProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureHumansReoperationArthrodesisBiomechanicsOsteoarthritisTotal ankle arthroplastyTotal ankle replacement

Identifiers

PMID41460300
PMCPMC12748299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.