Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Orthop. Nov 18, 2016; 7(11): 700-708
Published online Nov 18, 2016. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i11.700
Published online Nov 18, 2016. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i11.700
Table 3 Open vs arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis
Investigator | Year | Method | No. of patients | Union rate | Outcome(s) | |
Myerson et al[28] | Open | 1991 | Screws from tibia to talus | 16 | 100% | N/A |
Arthroscopic | Cannulated screws | 17 | 94% | |||
O'Brien et al[27] | Open | 1999 | Open technique | 17 | 82% | N/A |
Arthroscopic | Arthroscopic technique | 19 | 84% | |||
Nielsen et al[85] | Open | 2008 | Open technique | 49 | 84% | N/A |
Arthroscopic | Arthroscopic technique | 58 | 95% | |||
Townshend et al[26] | Open | 2013 | Open technique | 30 | N/A | AOS = 29.2 ± 17.2; SF-36 physical = 38.2 ± 11.8; SF-36 mental = 52.2 ± 12.0 |
Arthroscopic | Arthroscopic technique | 30 | AOS = 17.2 ± 17.9; SF-36 physical = 45.0 ± 9.3; SF-36 mental = 55.1 ± 8.1 |
- Citation: Yasui Y, Hannon CP, Seow D, Kennedy JG. Ankle arthrodesis: A systematic approach and review of the literature. World J Orthop 2016; 7(11): 700-708
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v7/i11/700.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v7.i11.700