SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Fate of revision total ankle arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 999 cases.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and associated factors of revision procedures after failed total ankle arthroplasty: a comparative cohort analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Revision Total Ankle Arthroplasty Using the INVISION Modular Implant System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Psychological status and clinical outcomes in ankle arthrodesis: preoperative predictors and postoperative changes.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- CT-based subchondral bone and clinical predictors of long-term total ankle arthroplasty outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevision total ankle arthroplasty (reTAA) is becoming more common. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate its re-revision rate and factors affecting longevity.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews guideline, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2010 to 1 October 2024. Studies reporting survivorship of reTAA were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcome was the re-revision rate. Pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The annual re-revision rate was introduced for time-adjusted analysis. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression and subgroup analyses.
resultsThe analysis included 22 retrospective studies (cohort studies and case series) and one prospective cohort study. The NOS scores indicated moderate to high quality. A total of 999 reTAAs with a mean follow-up of 5 years were identified. The pooled re-revision rate was 9.9% (95% CI: 5.9% to 13.9%). The annual re-revision rate was 2.6% (95% CI: 1.8% to 3.6%). Subgroup analysis indicated that stemmed tibial components were potentially associated with a lower re-revision rate (5.5%) versus unstemmed tibial components (13.2%) ( P = 0.077). However, meta-regression model identified follow-up duration as the only significant factor influencing re-revision rates. The pooled complication rate following reTAA was 18.2%. Among those failed reTAAs, 64.9% underwent conversion to ankle fusion and 5.3% received below-knee amputation.
conclusionAlthough most included studies were low-level evidence, our meta-analysis revealed an overall re-revision rate of 9.9% at 5-year follow-up, with an annual rate of 2.6% for reTAA. Limited evidence suggested that revision systems using stemmed tibial components might reduce the risk of re-revision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.