Background: The bicipital aponeurosis (BA) can often be torn concomitantly with a distal biceps tendon (DBT) rupture. Its repair, although recommended by some, has not commonly been addressed during the surgical management of DBT ruptures, and to date, surgical repair of the BA with DBT repair has not been evaluated clinically. Purpose: To utilize subjective and objective outcome measures to examine the safety and efficacy of 2-incision DBT repair with and without repair of the BA in patients with a DBT rupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Demographic and surgical data were reviewed retrospectively. Patients returned to the clinic to complete subjective outcome measures and objective measurements of range of motion, strength, and biceps contour. All patients were evaluated at least 1 year after surgical treatment. Results: Data from 24 male patients with a DBT rupture were used for the analysis; 13 (54%) underwent concomitant DBT and BA repair, and 11 (46%) underwent isolated DBT repair. There were no complications at 1 year in either group. The DBT + BA repair group returned to recreational activities faster (77% within 6 months and 100% within 1 year) than the isolated DBT repair group (36% within 6 months, 91% within 1 year, and 100% after more than 2 years) ( P = .05). There was a trend toward better Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation pain scores in the DBT + BA repair group than in the isolated DBT repair group (1.2 vs 5.3, respectively; P = .18). A trend also emerged toward closer return to subjective preinjury strength (77% vs 44%, respectively; P = .14). No significant difference emerged in patient satisfaction with the biceps contour, subjective scores on functional activities and disability, or objective measurements of strength, contour, and range of motion. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that repair of the BA in conjunction with DBT repair leads to a faster return to recreational activities compared with isolated DBT repair. Also noted was a trend toward subjectively improved pain and greater perceived strength, after DBT + BA repair, although this was not statistically significant. Further investigation with a larger population is required to better elucidate these potential differences.

Background: Total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion are effective treatments for end-stage ankle arthritis. Comparative studies elucidate differences in treatment outcomes; however, the literature lacks evidence demonstrating what outcomes are important to patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients’ experiences of living with both a TAR and ankle fusion. Methods: This research study used qualitative description. Individuals were selected from a cohort of patients with TAR and/or ankle fusion (n = 1254). Eligible patients were English speaking with a TAR and contralateral ankle fusion, and a minimum of 1 year since their most recent ankle reconstruction. Surgeries were performed by a single experienced surgeon, and semistructured interviews were conducted by a single researcher in a private hospital setting or by telephone. Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) scores, radiographs, and ancillary surgical procedures were collected to characterize patients. Themes were derived through qualitative data analysis. Results: Ten adults (8 men, 2 women), ages 59 to 90 years, were included. Average AOS pain and disability scores were similar for both surgeries for most patients. Participants discussed perceptions of each reconstructed ankle. Ankle fusions were considered stable and strong, but also stiff and compromising balance. TARs were considered flexible and more like a “normal ankle,” though patients expressed concerns about their TAR “turning” on uneven ground. Individuals applied this knowledge to facilitate movement, particularly during a first step and transitioning between positions. They described the need for careful foot placement and attention to the environment to avoid potential challenges. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the experiences of individuals living with a TAR and ankle fusion. In this unusual but limited group of patients, we found that each ankle reconstruction was generally perceived to have different characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Most participants articulated a preference for their TAR. These findings can help clinicians better counsel patients on expectations after TAR and ankle fusion, and improve patient-reported outcome measures by better capturing meaningful outcomes for patients. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.

Background: Open ankle arthrodesis (OAA) has traditionally been the gold standard for improving pain and function in ankle osteoarthritis patients. With advances in arthroscopic technology and improved instrumentation, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (AAA) has become more popular among orthopedic surgeons with equivalent or better outcomes compared with OAA. Recent studies have shown that, with increasing experience, AAA can even be suitable for large deformities, which has been traditional viewed as a relative contraindication. A review of literature and concepts with expert opinion. AAA has been shown in the literature to have equivalent fusion rates, decreased hospital length of stay, and better short-term and long-term function when compared with OAA. Arthroscopy advantages include faster time to union, decreased morbidity, decreased blood loss, and accelerated rehabilitation. Advanced arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation facilitate joint preparation with limited soft tissue injury, creating a favorable environment for fusion. Arthroscopic techniques lead to better short-term and long-term outcomes and decreased complications compared with open arthrodesis. The technique has been shown to be successful and reproducible within the literature, and can be employed to ultimately reduce overall hospital care costs and improve patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle arthrodesis are both effective treatments for end-stage ankle arthritis, however differences in treatment outcomes may be better understood using a qualitative inquiry among individuals who have undergone both procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients’ experiences and impressions of living with bilateral TAR and ankle arthrodesis. Methods: The sample consisted of 10 patients, selected purposively from a larger cohort, who could speak English and had a TAR on one side and ankle arthrodesis on the contralateral side. All procedures were completed by a single experienced surgeon. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at least one year after completion of the most recent procedure (TAR or arthrodesis). Qualitative data analysis was performed in accordance with a descriptive phenomenological theoretical approach, from which codes and themes were derived. Results: Interviews revealed advantages and disadvantages associated with both TAR and ankle arthrodesis from the patients’ perspective. Two overarching domains in which differences between their TARs and ankle fusions emerged: psychological and musculoskeletal. Within these domains, concepts of vigilance (as previously described by Pinsker) and strategizing the use of one ankle over the other emerged as themes that unified nearly all patients. Specific differences between the two procedures with respect to stability versus flexibility were commonly identified. Overall, patients preferred their TAR. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the lived experiences of a unique group of patients who have both an ankle arthrodesis and TAR. Patients evaluated the impact of TAR and ankle arthrodesis on their lives and overwhelmingly favoured TAR. The findings of this study can help clinicians to better counsel patients on expectations after TAR and ankle arthrodesis, and may aid researchers improve patient-report measurement instruments to better capture the outcomes that are important to patients.