Adverse Events in Total Ankle Arthroplasty, Analysis of the FDA Medical and User Facility Device Experience Database

Abstract

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Total ankle replacement has become a popular treatment option for end stage ankle arthritis. Most of the reports of adverse events following total ankle replacement have been from high volume institutions and are subject to either observational or selection bias as well as potential under-reporting as they do not include the experience of community and lower volume centers and surgeons. The FDA’s Medical and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database provides a more complete scope of adverse events due to the mandatory reporting requirements by the FDA of implant manufactures. We reviewed the database to identify the common modes of failure and complications of total ankle implants Methods: We retrospectively reviewed reports of the MAUDE database from November 2011 to September 2018 regarding all total ankle implants. Each device in the MAUDE database is classified with a 3-letter code, we identified the 2 codes assigned to total ankle arthroplasty devices, and manually searched the FDA’s published Device Classification list for adverse events. All events were reviewed and classified. Data related to patient age or sex, surgeon, medical center location are not available in the database Results: We identified 1000 adverse reports in the period between November 2011 and September 2018. After exclusion of duplicate reports for single events or reports irrelevant to total ankle arthroplasty, a total of 697 adverse event reports were noted. The most common mode of failure was aseptic loosening (21%), followed by infection (16%), alignment and mechanical issues (instability, malalignment, malposition, stiffness, impingement) (15%), implantation issues (pin, screw or drill breakage, alignment guide problems) (9%), polyethylene related problems (wear, displaced or fractured implants) (7%), bony and soft tissue overgrowth (6%), and peri-prosthetic fractures (5%). Conclusion: Our analysis reveals that the most reported mode of failure was aseptic loosening followed by infection. However, it is notable that there are a significant number of issues with implant alignment and mechanics, complications during implantation and polyethylene component failure that are under-reported in the literature. Knowledge of these adverse events may help surgeons avoid similar complications as well as lead to improvement in component implantation and design