BACKGROUND

The incidence of primary total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is rising, with a corresponding increase in revision surgeries. Despite this, research on risk factors for revision TAA following primary TAA remains limited. Radiographic soft tissue thickness has been explored as a potential predictor for outcomes in hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasty, but its role in TAA has not been assessed. This study aimed to assess the predictive value of radiographic soft tissue thickness for identifying patients at risk of requiring revision surgery following primary TAA.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 323 patients who underwent primary TAA between 2003 and 2019. Radiographic measurements of soft tissue thickness were obtained from preoperative radiographs. Two novel radiographic measures of soft tissue thickness were developed and assessed (tibial tissue thickness and talus tissue thickness). Clinical variables including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, diabetes, smoking status, primary diagnosis, and implant type were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the predictive value of soft tissue thickness and BMI for revision TAA.

RESULTS

The rate of revision surgery was 4.3% (14 of 323 patients). Patients requiring revision had significantly greater tibial tissue (3.54 vs 2.48 cm;  = .02) and talus tissue (2.79 vs 2.42 cm;  = .02) thickness compared with those not requiring revision. Both the tibial tissue thickness (odds ratio 1.16 [1.12-1.20];  < .01) and the talus tissue thickness (odds ratio: 1.10 [1.05-1.15];  < .01) measurements were significant predictors of revision TAA in multivariable logistic regression models. However, BMI was not a significant predictor of revision TAA. The two metrics demonstrated excellent interrater reliability.

CONCLUSION

Greater soft tissue thickness was a better predictor of revision TAA compared with BMI. These findings suggest that radiographic soft tissue thickness may be a valuable tool for assessing the risk of the need for revision TAA following primary TAA. Further research is needed to validate and explore the potential impact on clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative study.