Retrospective Review of Complications and Revision Rates Between Isolated Talonavicular vs Talonavicular and Subtalar (Double) Arthrodesis vs Triple Arthrodesis

Chase Gauthier; Yianni Bakaes; Matthew Martinez; James Hardin; Tyler Gonzalez; J Benjamin Jackson 3rd

doi:10.1177/24730114241231559

Retrospective Review of Complications and Revision Rates Between Isolated Talonavicular vs Talonavicular and Subtalar (Double) Arthrodesis vs Triple Arthrodesis

Foot Ankle Orthop. 2024 Feb 22;9(1):24730114241231559. doi: 10.1177/24730114241231559. eCollection 2024 Jan.

Authors

Chase Gauthier¹, Yianni Bakaes¹, Matthew Martinez¹, James Hardin², Tyler Gonzalez¹, J Benjamin Jackson 3rd¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Prisma Health, Columbia, SC, USA.
² Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, SC, USA.

Abstract

Background: Hindfoot fusion procedures are common for the treatment of end-stage arthritis or deformity. Surgical treatments for these conditions include talonavicular joint (single) arthrodesis, talonavicular and subtalar (double) arthrodesis, or talonavicular, subtalar, and calcaneocuboid (triple) arthrodesis. This study evaluated the complication rate, revision surgery rate, and hardware removal rate for those treated with either single, double, or triple arthrodesis.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for patients who underwent single (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 28740), double (CPT 28725 and 28740), or triple (CPT 28715) arthrodesis to treat hindfoot arthritis/deformity (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code: 734, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes: M76821, M76822, and M76829) from 2005 to 2022 using the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs databank. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, procedure data, and postoperative outcomes within 1 year of principal surgery. Student t test, chi-squared test, and multivariable logistic regression analysis were utilized during data analysis.

Results: A total of 433 patients were identified, with 248 undergoing single arthrodesis, 67 undergoing double arthrodesis, and 118 undergoing triple arthrodesis. There was no significant difference between single, double, and triple arthrodesis in the rate of complications, hardware removals, revision surgeries, or 30-day readmission when controlling for confounding variables. However, a decrease in Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was found to be predictive of an increase in the revision surgery rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.85, P = .02).

Conclusion: We found no difference in the rate of complications, hardware removals, or revision surgeries in those undergoing single, double, or triple arthrodesis. Surprisingly we found that a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, indicating a healthier patient had a significant relationship with a higher rate of revision surgery. Further study including radiographic indications for surgery or the impact of overall health status on revision surgery rates may further elucidate the other components of this relationship.

Level of evidence: Level III, cohort study.

Keywords: Single arthrodesis; complications; double arthrodesis; outcomes; triple arthrodesis.