Morelli F, Princi G, Cantagalli MR, Rossini M, Caperna L, Mazza D, Ferretti A. Arthroscopic vs open ankle arthrodesis: A prospective case series with seven years follow-up. World J Orthop 2021; 12(12): 1016-1025 [PMID: 35036344 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1016]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Giorgio Princi, MD, Doctor, Surgeon, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, Roma 00189, Italy. giorgioprinci@gmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Orthopedics
Article-Type of This Article
Prospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Orthop. Dec 18, 2021; 12(12): 1016-1025 Published online Dec 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1016
Arthroscopic vs open ankle arthrodesis: A prospective case series with seven years follow-up
Federico Morelli, Giorgio Princi, Matteo Romano Cantagalli, Marco Rossini, Ludovico Caperna, Daniele Mazza, Andrea Ferretti
Federico Morelli, Giorgio Princi, Matteo Romano Cantagalli, Marco Rossini, Ludovico Caperna, Daniele Mazza, Andrea Ferretti, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma 00189, Italy
Author contributions: Morelli F, Princi G did work design; Princi G, Cantagalli MR, and Rossini M did data acquisition; Princi G did data analysis; Princi G, Cantagalli MR, Rossini M, Caperna L and Mazza D drafted the work; Morelli F, Princi G, Caperna L, Mazza D and Ferretti A did critical revision for important intellectual content; All authors did final approval of the version to be published.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Sant'Andrea Hospital-La Sapienza University of Rome Institutional Review Board (Approval No. 00172008).
Conflict-of-interest statement: On behalf of all the authors, there is no conflict of interest.
Data sharing statement: Participants gave informed consent for the publication of the study; the presented data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.
CONSORT 2010 statement: The guidelines of the CONSORT 2010 statement have been adopted.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Giorgio Princi, MD, Doctor, Surgeon, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, Roma 00189, Italy. giorgioprinci@gmail.com
Received: March 28, 2021 Peer-review started: March 28, 2021 First decision: June 16, 2021 Revised: June 27, 2021 Accepted: December 10, 2021 Article in press: December 10, 2021 Published online: December 18, 2021 Processing time: 261 Days and 1.8 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
Ankle arthrodesis is a commonly used treatment for end stage ankle arthrosis. There are two different surgical approaches: open arthrodesis and arthroscopic arthrodesis.
Research motivation
To compare the results of arthroscopic arthrodesis vs open arthrodesis and evaluate the different efficacy of these surgical approaches.
Research objectives
The aim of the study was to analyze the medium and long term results of the two surgical treatments using the clinical evaluation scales for the ankle.
Research methods
Patients treated with open and arthroscopic technique were divided into two groups. To evaluate the surgical treatments we used The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle score (AOFAS), Freiburg Ankle score (FAS) and visual analogue scale for pain intensity. This study enrolled 23 patients which were evaluated preoperatively, at six months and at final follow-up (7 years).
Research results
Arthroscopic treatment shows better results at six months with the AOFAS and FAS. The decrease of pain at six months is present in both groups. At the final follow up both treatments show good clinical results. To be noted is the data relating to hospital stay, which appears to be lower for arthroscopic treatment.
Research conclusions
There are no differences between open and arthroscopic treatments at clinical results at a medium to long term follow-up, and in both cases it was possible to achieve excellent results.
Research perspectives
In perspective, despite being a medium-long term follow up, it is possible to re-evaluate the same court of patients at a greater distance to verify the stability of these results.
