Effect of Gender Differences on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications in Total Ankle Replacement

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate gender differences in patient outcomes and complications following total ankle replacement (TAR). Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent primary TAR from July 2007 through May 2016 were prospectively followed and retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, operative, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and complication data were collected and analyzed. PROs included the visual analog scale (VAS), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot scale, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA). A total of 475 patients were evaluated, including 248 males (52.2%) and 227 females (47.8%) with an average of 56.8 months follow-up. Results: Women were more likely to have inflammatory arthritis (13.7% vs 2.8%; P < .01) and significantly worse preoperative SF-36 total, SF-36 mental health component, AOFAS total, AOFAS pain, SMFA function, and SMFA bother scores (all P < .05). Both genders demonstrated significant improvement in PROs at 1, 2, and 5 years. The magnitude of improvement was similar between genders for all PROs (all P < .05) with the exception of SF-36 physical function, which was greater in men. Females underwent more nonrevision reoperations (32.2% vs 22.6%; P = .0191), but there was no significant difference in failure rates (male 7.3% vs female 3.5%; P = .07). The reoperation and failure rates at 2 years postoperation were 10.1% and 1.6% for men and 18.5% and 0.9% for women, respectively. Conclusion: Women undergoing TAR were more likely to have worse preoperative PROs and higher rates of nonrevision reoperations, which remains true when controlling for their increased incidence of inflammatory arthritis. However, women reported similar improvements in PROs and had similar prosthetic survival rates as men. Increased understanding of these disparities, combined with gender-based interventions, may further advance patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic, retrospective comparative series