Ankle arthrodesis using the Taylor Spatial Frame for the treatment of infection, extruded talus and complex pilon fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of complex pilon fractures and talus fracture-dislocations present several challenges, like avoiding infection, achieving union, management of bone loss and function preservation.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort review of fourteen patients who underwent ankle arthrodesis (AA) using the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) after pilon and talus fracture-dislocations. Ten tibiocalcaneal (TC) and four tibiotalar (TT) fusions were performed. Eleven of these cases were Gustilo III open fractures. Seven cases involved an open extruded talus. Four cases had established infections. There was a mean of 2.7 (range 0 - 8) operations prior to AA using TSF. The primary objective was to determine infection and union rates. Patient-reported outcomes (Short Form 36, SF-36) and functional outcomes (Ankle Osteoarthritis Score, AOS) were the secondary measures.

RESULTS

Eradication and prevention of deep infection was achieved in all cases. Radiological union was achieved at a mean of 9 months (range 5 - 17). Solid AA was achieved in 12 of 14 cases using the TSF. Two TC fusions required a hindfoot fusion nail to achieve union. Eleven cases had concurrent bone transport, mean of 63 mm (range 33 - 180). Mean time of TSF treatment was 11.1 months (range 6 - 16). One case required delayed amputation. Eight patients were able to fully weight bear unaided after the treatment. Mean SF-36 was 65 (range 35 -100). Mean AOS was 36.5 (range 6.6 - 77.5) with 69.3% of scores graded good to excellent. Mean total number of operations was 5.9 (range 2 - 10). Minimum follow up time was 12 months (range 12 - 56).

CONCLUSION

AA using TSF can be considered for complex pilon fractures and extruded talus. It has shown to be effective in achieving a solid fusion and infection eradication. While using the TSF in isolation, non-union must be suspected in TC fusions, absence of radiological signs of healing, massive bone loss, and possibly not using bone graft. Patients must be aware that while treatment of these injuries will be prolonged and carries the risk of many potential complications, it provides a good alternative to amputation.