Does Coronal Plane Malalignment of the Tibial Insert in Total Ankle Arthroplasty Alter Distal Foot Bone Mechanics? A Cadaveric Gait Study
Brandt C Buckner,Christina J Stender,Matthew D Baron,Jacob H T Hornbuckle,William R Ledoux,Bruce J Sangeorzan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001294
Abstract:Background: Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is becoming a more prevalent treatment for end-stage ankle arthritis. However, the effects of malalignment on TAA remain poorly understood. Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to quantify the mechanical effects of coronal plane malalignment of the tibial insert in TAA using cadaveric gait simulation. Specifically, we asked, is there a change in (1) ankle joint congruency, (2) kinematic joint position, (3) kinematic ROM, (4) peak plantar pressure, and (5) center of pressure with varus and valgus malalignment? Methods: A modified TAA was implanted into seven cadaveric foot specimens. Wedges were used to simulate coronal plane malalignment of the tibial insert. The degree of malalignment (tibial insert angle [TIA] and talar component angle [TCA]) was quantified radiographically for neutral and 5°, 10°, and 15° varus and valgus wedges. Dynamic walking at 1/6 of physiological speed was simulated using a robotic gait simulator. A motion capture system was used to measure foot kinematics, and a pressure mat was used to measure plantar pressure. Joint congruency was quantified as the difference between TIA and TCA. Continuous joint position, joint ROM, peak plantar pressure, and center of pressure for varus and valgus malalignment compared with neutral alignment were estimated using linear mixed effects regression. Pairwise comparisons between malalignment conditions and neutral were considered significant if both the omnibus test for the overall association between outcome and malalignment and the individual pairwise comparison (adjusted for multiple comparisons within a given outcome) had p ≤ 0.05. Results: Descriptively, the TIA and TCA were both less pronounced than the wedge angle and component incongruence was seen (R = 0.65; p < 0.001). Varus malalignment of the tibial insert shifted the tibiotalar joint into varus and internally rotated the joint. The tibiotalar joint's ROM slightly increased as the TIA shifted into varus (1.3 ± 0.7° [mean ± SD] [95% confidence interval -0.7 to 3.4]; p = 0.03), and the first metatarsophalangeal joint's ROM decreased as the TIA shifted into varus (-1.9 ± 0.9° [95% CI -5.6 to 1.7]; p = 0.007). In the sagittal plane, the naviculocuneiform joint's ROM slightly decreased as the TIA shifted into varus (-0.9 ± 0.4° [95% CI -2.1 to 0.3]; p = 0.017). Hallux pressure increased as the TIA became more valgus (59 ± 50 kPa [95% CI -88 to 207]; p = 0.006). The peak plantar pressure slightly decreased in the third and fourth metatarsals as the TIA shifted into valgus (-15 ± 17° [95% CI -65 to 37]; p = 0.03 and -8 ± 4° [95% CI -17 to 1]; p = 0.048, respectively). The fifth metatarsal's pressure slightly decreased as the TIA shifted into valgus (-18 ± 12 kPa [95% CI -51 to 15]) or varus (-7 ± 18 kPa [95% CI -58 to 45]; p = 0.002). All comparisons were made to the neutral condition. Conclusions: In this cadaver study, coronal plane malalignment in TAA altered foot kinematics and plantar pressure. In general, varus TAA malalignment led to varus shift and internal rotation of the tibiotalar joint, a slight increase in the tibiotalar ROM, and a slight decrease in the first metatarsophalangeal ROM, while a valgus TAA malalignment was manifested primarily through increased hallux pressure with a slight off-loading of the third and fourth metatarsals. Clinical relevance: This study may increase our understanding of the biomechanical processes that underlie the unfavorable clinical outcomes (such as, poor patient-reported outcomes or implant loosening) that have been associated with coronal plane malalignment of the tibial component in TAA.