Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Ankle joint distraction arthroplasty for severe ankle arthritis

Contributed equally
BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201718:96

DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1457-9

Received: 30 November 2016

Accepted: 21 February 2017

Published: 28 February 2017

Abstract

Background

Ankle distraction arthroplasty is one option for the treatment of severe ankle arthritis in young patients. The outcomes and factors predicting success in distraction arthroplasty are poorly understood.

Methods

From January 2011 to May 2015, 16 patients who had undergone ankle distraction arthroplasty for ankle arthritis were operated, including six males and ten females. All patients were available for analysis. The main outcome measurements included joint space on weight bearing radiographs, AOFAS-AH scores (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score), VAS scores and SF-36 scores.

Results

All 16 patients were followed for a mean follow-up of 40.9 ± 14.7 months (range, 17–67 months). Fourteen of the 16 patients still had their native ankle joints. One patient had undergone ankle arthrodesis 1 year after the operation and one patient had converted to spontaneous ankle fusion at the 3 years follow-up postoperative. The VAS score improved from 5.9 ± 0.8 to 3.7 ± 2.2 (p = 0.0028). The mean AOFAS-AH score improved from 41.9 ± 7.2 preoperatively to 68.1 ± 20.0 postoperatively (p = 0.001). The mean SF-36 score improved from 43.1 ± 7.6 preoperatively to 62.7 ± 18.8 postoperatively (p = 0.002). A weight-bearing ankle space larger than 3 mm at 1 year following distraction is a positive predictive factor.

Conclusions

In this study, the treatment of ankle motion distraction for end stage ankle arthritis showed benefit in 9/16 (56.25%) patients at 41 months. It is a promising method for young patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Keywords

Ankle joint Distraction Arthroplasty

Background

Ankle joint distraction arthroplasty is a promising treatment method for ankle arthritis but the outcomes of distraction arthroplasty are poorly understood. It is an effective treatment for young patients with end-stage ankle arthritis, providing the benefits of pain reduction and functional improvement. In addition to ankle osteoarthritis, young patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the ankle joint also achieved good results [1]. The purpose of ankle distraction is to allow for intermittent intra-articular fluid pressures, the relief of mechanical stress on the cartilage and sustained, diminished subchondral sclerosis following the procedure [2, 3]. All of the mechanisms mentioned above are of benefit for cartilage repair and the reduction of cartilage damage. However, the current literature lacks good studies on distraction arthroplasty [4].

On the basis of the available clinical evidence, we conducted this study and hypothesized that ankle motion distraction would alleviate symptoms, improve ankle function and delay the time to ankle arthroplasty or arthrodesis while maintaining the joint space for a long period of time.

Methods

Approval for this retrospective study was obtained from our hospital’s ethics committee.

The inclusion criteria for patients included the following: (1) symptomatic isolated, unilateral severe ankle osteoarthritis; (2) younger than 60 years old; (3) painful ankle arthritis with more than 1 year of conservative treatment including ankle debridement and medication.

The exclusion criteria included the following: (1) acute or chronic infection; (2) older than 60 years old; (3) poor general health condition; (4) patients who had ankle surgery like supramalleolar osteotomy during ankle distraction or during follow-up. Because we were not sure whether or not the outcomes were due to ankle distraction.

All the patients were followed and none dropped out. Since we decided to analyze the outcomes of ankle distraction, all patients were required to come to our clinic during the last 3 months before submission of this paper. We got 15 patients’ X-rays and latest information during this period. The other patient was operated 6 years ago. The last X-ray of her was 4 years postoperative. But we still keep contact with her via telephone.

Preoperative preparation

All patients were evaluated and their complete histories were obtained. Preoperative routine weight bearing radiographs were performed, including anteroposterior, mortise and lateral views of the ankle joint. The hindfoot alignment view was also made to help in the evaluation of hindfoot alignment. The hindfoot alignment view we used was recommended by Saltzman and el-Khoury [5]. CT and MRI scans were obtained before the surgery and at the follow-up visits to evaluate the condition of the ankle joint cartilage and subchondral bone.

Before the surgery, the patients were examined and circumferential external fixators were constructed based on the size and length of each patient’s leg and foot. All VAS scores, AOFAS-AH scores (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score) and SF-36 scores were collected preoperatively as customary at our center. The VAS score was used to evaluate the degree of pain. The AOFAS-AH score and SF-36 score were used to evaluate ankle function.

Surgical technique

The patient was placed supine on the operating table. First, a complete cheilectomy was performed to clear the osseous impingement. We did adequate resection of anterior tibial osteophytes to make sure that when dorsiflexing the ankle joint, there was no impingement. Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopic images were used to assess the resection. All visual osteophytes around ankle joint were completely resected. Osteophytes around the ankle joint were removed through an anterior open incision or a lateral or posterior incision, if necessary.

The external fixator was applied in a standard fashion. The external fixator included two tibial rings and one podalic ring. The whole external fixator was constructed and sterilized before the surgery. A K-wire was inserted into the axis of the ankle motion from the tip of the medial malleolus to the tip of the lateral malleolus temporarily and the external fixation frame was installed to make sure that the axis of the ankle motion was consistent with the axis of the external fixation frame motion. This was the most important step. The frame was fixed with K-wires or half pins if necessary. Each tibial ring was fixed with two crossed K-wires. If the patient had osteoporosis, half pins were utilized to help stabilize the external fixator. Foot fixation included four 2.0 mm tensioned K-wires. Two crossed K-wires were inserted through the calcaneum, and two K-wires were drilled through the metatarsals and midfoot to fix the forefoot and midfoot. C-arm fluoroscopy was used to ensure ideal wire placement. After all wires and pins were placed correctly, the temporary K-wire inserted into the axis of ankle motion was removed (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Photograph of ankle distractor

Postoperative management

Distraction by 1 mm per day was performed after surgery and was assessed by radiography. Full weight bearing was permitted 2 weeks postoperatively. We required the patients walk with the fixators 2 weeks postoperatively, and the motion exercises were performed from the 2nd week to the 12th week. After the surgery, every patient underwent routine pinhole nursing every day. The distractor was removed 3 months after surgery. Each patient was required to come to the outpatient department every year to evaluate the function of the ankle and to take radiographs. Unfortunately, not every patient complied with this demand to visit every year. The postoperative VAS, AOFAS-AH and SF-36 scores analyzed in this study were the latest information collected by telephone or outpatient visit.

Statistical methods

The significance level was set at α = 0.05. All data analyses were performed with SAS software version 8.1 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). The results were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The paired Student’s t-test was used to compare the preoperative and postoperative radiographic measurements and ankle function scores.

Results

From January 2011 to May 2015, 126 patients were screened and 17 patients entered into this study. One patient had supramalleolar osteotomy during ankle joint distraction and was excluded. In this case, the patients had a history of severe Pilon fracture and had severe posttraumatic ankle varus deformity and ankle arthritis. So we did a supramalleolar osteotomy to realign the ankle alignment. The remaining 16 patients (6 males and 10 females) who had undergone ankle distraction arthroplasty met the criteria. Table 1 shows the patient’s detailed information. The average patient age at surgery was 30.3 ± 14.3 years old (range, 14 to 60 years). Among these, 13 patients had a history of ankle fracture or Pilon fracture. One patient had a history of an old talus fracture. One patient had a history of ankle sprain 10 years prior to the study, and the other one had no prior history of ankle injury. One patient also underwent the fibula reduction with distraction at the same time. Debridement and removal of osteophytes were performed in 6 patients. The Achilles tendons of two patients were lengthened at the time of operation with percutaneous Hoke method. The mean follow-up time was 40.9 ± 14.7 months (range, 17 to 67 months) (Table 1).
Table 1

Outcomes of ankle distraction for ankle arthritis

Patient no.

Left/Right

History

Time of follow-up (month)

VAS preop

AOFAS preop

SF-36 preop

VAS postop

AOFAS postop

SF-36 postop

Clinical outcome

1

L

ankle fracture

17

6

36

33.53

3

78

57.74

good

2

R

ankle fracture

24

6

42

44.36

1

81

77.61

good

3

L

ankle fracture

44

7

29

66.22

2

88

78.02

good

4

R

-

66

6

39

42.05

6

39

41.94

fair

5

R

ankle fracture

63

5

48

41.12

6

46

41.31

fair

6

L

ankle fracture

36

7

51

50.35

5

58

67.44

good

7

L

ankle sprain

29

5

36

39.97

5

41

41.36

fair

8

R

ankle fracture

67

6

42

43.34

4

60

59.72

good

9

R

ankle fracture

32

5

31

37.09

0

100

89.64

excellent

10

L

ankle fracture

50

6

51

42.41

6

57

50.13

fair

11

R

talus fracture

37

-

-

-

-

-

-

failed

12

R

ankle fracture

32

7

44

43.01

7

56

43.9

fair

13

L

ankle fracture

32

7

52

40.78

2

90

87.55

excellent

14

L

ankle fracture

39

5

44

42.84

4

68

51.28

good

15

R

pilon fracture

37

-

-

-

-

-

-

failed

16

L

ankle fracture

49

5

42

48.72

1

91

90.06

excellent

During the follow-up, one patient had talonavicular joint arthritis 3 years after the operation, but the patient was very satisfied with the ankle joint function although the ankle joint motion was comparatively less than normal. One patient had calcaneal osteotomy due to hindfoot valgus alignment. Five patients had their ankle space return to the same as or narrower than their preoperative joint space. One patient’s ankle joint converted to spontaneous fusion at the 3-year follow-up, and this patient had pain relief. One of the patients with severe Pilon fracture ultimately transferred to ankle arthrodesis in 2015, 2 years after ankle distraction arthroplasty. The other 9 patients remained at a normal or wider joint space at the latest follow-up and had positive outcomes. A total of 14 patients had native ankle joints at the latest follow-up. Table 2 shows that the mean VAS score improved from 5.9 ± 0.8, preoperatively, to 3.7 ± 2.2, postoperatively (p = 0.0028). The mean AOFAS-AH score improved from 41.9 ± 7.2, preoperatively, to 68.1 ± 20.0, postoperatively (p = 0.001). The mean SF-36 score improved from 43.1 ± 7.6, preoperatively, to 62.7 ± 18.8, postoperatively (p = 0.002) (Table 2). In this study, 3 patients rated their outcomes as “excellent”, and a “good” outcome was observed in 6 patients. Five patients rated their results as “fair” because of the consistent discomfort. On the other hand, 2 distraction surgeries failed, with one patient undergoing ankle arthrodesis and another with the spontaneous fusion of the ankle joint. Only two patients had pin-site infection. In this study, the use of ankle motion distraction for the treatment of severe ankle arthritis showed benefit in 9/16 patients at 41 months. The mean preoperative ankle space was 1.9 mm (range, 1.6 to 2.4 mm), the mean ankle space during distraction was 6.2 (range, 5 to 8.83 mm), and the mean ankle space of last follow-up was 4.1 mm (range, 2.2 to 5.48 mm). We noticed that patients with ankle space larger than 3 mm tended to achieve better outcomes. A weight-bearing ankle space larger than 3 mm at 1 year following distraction is a positive predictive factor.
Table 2

Functional outcomes after ankle distraction

 

Preop

Postop

P value

VAS

5.9 ± 0.8

3.7 ± 2.2

0.0028

AOFAS-AH

41.9 ± 7.2

68.1 ± 20.0

0.001

SF-36

43.1 ± 7.6

62.7 ± 18.8

0.002

The average preoperative and postoperative ankle dorsiflexion ranges were 6.5° (range, 0 to 12°) and 8° (range, 0 to 15°) (p > 0.05). The average preoperative and postoperative ankle plantarflexion ranges were 33.2° (range, 20° to 45°) and 36° (range, 20° to 50°) (p < 0.05). The average preoperative and postoperative ankle motion ranges were 39.7° (range, 20° to 55°) and 44° (range, 25° to 60°) (p < 0.05).

Fisher’s Exact Test was used to analyze whether gender was one of the prognostic factors. And the P value was larger than 0.05, which showed gender had no effect on prognosis (Fig. 2a) (b).
Fig. 2

a radiographs of a female with severe ankle arthritis. a preoperative ankle joint. b ankle joint during ankle distraction. c ankle joint after removal of external fixation. d 1 year postoperative. b lateral radiographs of a female with severe ankle arthritis. a lateral view of the same patient before operation. b lateral view of the same patient at 1 year after operation

Discussion

Posttraumatic arthritis is the most common form of ankle arthritis. Ankle fractures can cause altered biomechanics and structural changes even with adequate open reduction and internal fixation [3]. Ligamentous injury is another important cause of posttraumatic ankle arthritis.

The goals of treatment for ankle osteoarthritis are reducing pain and restoring as much ankle function as possible [6]. Conservative treatments for early stage ankle arthritis include lifestyle adaption, oral medicine such as NSAIDS. Joint preservation surgical treatments include ankle debridement, osteotomy and joint distraction. Joint sacrificing treatments include arthrodesis and joint replacement. Ankle distraction, arthrodesis and replacement are indicated for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Arthrodesis has the potential risk of adjacent joint arthritis, continuous pain, nonunion and decreased function [710]. Ankle replacement is associated with the risk of device-related infection and major revision surgery [11, 12]. For ankle arthritis, supramalleolar osteotomy is indicated for early ankle arthritis with partially preserved ankle joint surface, ankle frontal alignment deformities and retaining the motion of the ankle [1315]. Ankle arthritis with subsequent subtalar arthritis is a good indication of tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis [16].

However, for relatively young cases, ankle distraction may be a better choice. The mechanisms of ankle distraction may attribute to the relief of mechanical stress on the cartilage, the formation of intermittent fluid pressure that is beneficial to the nutrition of cartilage and decreasing subcohondral sclerosis [2].

Van valburg et al. recommended that distraction should be carried out over a distance of 5 mm on weight-bearing X-rays [17]. Fragomen et al. came to the conclusion through cadaveric experiments that a 5.8 mm distraction gap on X-ray was needed under weight-bearing conditions, while a 7.0 mm distraction gap on X-ray was needed under non-weight-bearing conditions [18]. Few studies emphasize the ankle space change after ankle distraction. In our study, we noticed that there was a reduction of ankle space after taking off the external fixation. However, if the ankle space could maintain a normal or larger than normal space 1 year postoperatively, the joint space may continue to stay in this condition long term.

The fixator used in the distraction arthroplasty can be fixed or mobilizable. In our study, all patients’ fixators were mobilizable. In a prospective randomized controlled trial, Saltzman et al. reported that outcomes after motion distraction were significantly better than those using fixed distraction [19]. Moreover, in their subsequent study, Nguyen et al. reported that AOS scores at 2 years after distraction and age at the time of surgery were the most important predictive factors of ankle survival. They thought that those with an AOS score smaller than 42 and older patients tended to achieve better outcomes [20]. They questioned whether motion distraction was superior to fixed distraction because of the limited number of patients and the fixed group regaining motion over time. However, in their studies, there was no description of the distraction distance before and after the operation and no mention of joint space improvement. Marijnissen et al. found that the female gender is a predictor of failure of distraction arthroplasty [21]. Female patients had a higher likelihood of failure than male patients, which is a finding similar to that found in hip distraction. In our study, we found that it is the postoperative ankle space that is the most important predictive factor. If the ankle space remained larger than 3 mm at the 1-year postoperative follow-up under the weight-bearing situation, the outcomes tend to be better than those with an ankle space smaller than 3 mm. The weight-baring ankle spaces of those who achieved pain relief or clinical symptoms improvement were larger than 3 mm.

In this study, six patients had preceding arthroscopic debridement or debridement with open incision. In previous studies, ankle distraction had a statistically significant better result than debridement, and it was demonstrated that the improvement in the clinical outcome after ankle distraction was not due to debridement [2, 22].

The most common complication of distraction is pin-site infection. Others like osteomyelitis, deep vein thrombosis and K-wire breakage were reported [23]. In our study only two patients had pin-site infection, which was resolved by oral antibiotics and routinely dressing change.

There are several limitations of this study. First, it was a retrospective study of a case series, and there was no control group. Thus, we were not sure whether there was a placebo effect. Six patients underwent ankle joint debridement and osteophyte excision, and one of the patients also underwent a reduction of the fibula. We were not sure how much these additional procedures could have influenced the outcomes, although a previous study has demonstrated that the clinical outcome improvement is not due to debridement [2]. The articular surface of severe ankle arthritis patients is blurred, which makes it hard to measure the joint space. Although we tried to measure the space as many times as possible, it may not represent the real ankle space. Thus, the ankle space during long-term visits may not represent the real average. Since we noticed an ankle fusion during follow-up, the possibility of spontaneous ankle fusion should not be neglected even though the patient experienced pain relief.

Conclusion

In this study, the treatment of ankle motion distraction for severe ankle arthritis showed benefit in 9/16 (56.25%) patients at 41 months. It is a promising method for young patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Abbreviations

AOFAS-AH: 

American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot

AOS: 

Ankle Osteoarthritis scale

SF-36: 

Short form-36

VAS: 

Visual analogue scale

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge all collaborating researchers in collecting information during this study. We would also like to thank the subjects whose participation made this investigation possible.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data are listed in Table 1 and are available from the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

YX: literature research, experimental studies, statistical analysis and manuscript preparation. YZ: experimental studies and manuscript editing. X-YX concepts and study design, experimental studies. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. Written consent to participate was provided by participants included in the study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine
(2)
Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

References

  1. Nakasa T, Adachi N, Kato T, Ochi M. Distraction arthroplasty with arthroscopic microfracture in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis of the ankle joint. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54(2):280–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Marijnissen AC, van Roermund PM, van Melkebeek J, Lafeber FP. Clinical benefit of joint distraction in the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Clin. 2003;8(2):335–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Martin RL, Stewart GW, Conti SF. Posttraumatic ankle arthritis: an update on conservative and surgical management. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(5):253–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Smith NC, Beaman D, Rozbruch SR, Glazebrook MA. Evidence-based indications for distraction ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(8):632–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Saltzman CL, el-Khoury GY. The hindfoot alignment view. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(9):572–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grunfeld R, Aydogan U, Juliano P. Ankle arthritis: review of diagnosis and operative management. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98(2):267–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchner M, Sabo D. Ankle fusion attributable to posttraumatic arthrosis: a long-term followup of 48 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:155–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Muir DC, Amendola A, Saltzman CL. Long-term outcome of ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Clin. 2002;7(4):703–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hendrickx RP, Stufkens SA, de Bruijn EE, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GM. Medium- to long-term outcome of ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(10):940–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Coester LM, Saltzman CL, Leupold J, Pontarelli W. Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(2):219–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. SooHoo NF, Zingmond DS, Ko CY. Comparison of reoperation rates following ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(10):2143–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Matsumoto T, Yasunaga H, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Izawa N, Yasui T, et al. Time trends and risk factors for perioperative complications in total ankle arthroplasty: retrospective analysis using a national database in Japan. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):450.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Tanaka Y. The concept of ankle joint preserving surgery: why does supramalleolar osteotomy work and how to decide when to do an osteotomy or joint replacement. Foot Ankle Clin. 2012;17(4):545–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Barg A, Pagenstert GI, Horisberger M, Paul J, Gloyer M, Henninger HB, et al. Supramalleolar osteotomies for degenerative joint disease of the ankle joint: indication, technique and results. Int Orthop. 2013;37(9):1683–95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Colin F, Gaudot F, Odri G, Judet T. Supramalleolar osteotomy: techniques, indications and outcomes in a series of 83 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(4):413–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fang Z, Claassen L, Windhagen H, Daniilidis K, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Waizy H. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis using a retrograde intramedullary nail with a valgus curve. Orthop Surg. 2015;7(2):125–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. van Valburg AA, van Roermund PM, Lammens J, van Melkebeek J, Verbout AJ, Lafeber EP, et al. Can Ilizarov joint distraction delay the need for an arthrodesis of the ankle? A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(5):720–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fragomen AT, McCoy TH, Meyers KN, Rozbruch SR. Minimum distraction gap: how much ankle joint space is enough in ankle distraction arthroplasty? HSS J. 2014;10(1):6–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Saltzman CL, Hillis SL, Stolley MP, Anderson DD, Amendola A. Motion versus fixed distraction of the joint in the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(11):961–70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Nguyen MP, Pedersen DR, Gao Y, Saltzman CL, Amendola A. Intermediate-term follow-up after ankle distraction for treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(7):590–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Marijnissen AC, Hoekstra MC, Pre BC, van Roermund PM, van Melkebeek J, Amendola A, et al. Patient characteristics as predictors of clinical outcome of distraction in treatment of severe ankle osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res. 2014;32(1):96–101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Marijnissen AC, Van Roermund PM, Van Melkebeek J, Schenk W, Verbout AJ, Bijlsma JW, et al. Clinical benefit of joint distraction in the treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the ankle: proof of concept in an open prospective study and in a randomized controlled study. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(11):2893–902.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bernstein M, Reidler J, Fragomen A, Rozbruch SR. Ankle distraction arthroplasty: indications, technique, and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(2):89–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement