anklman
Case File · Ankle · Arthritis
Case Number
005
De-identified · Teaching Use

Failed ankle fusion — conversion to total ankle arthroplasty

A 63-year-old retired teacher with a painful post-traumatic ankle fusion performed fifteen years ago for a pilon fracture. Adjacent-joint arthritis, progressive pain, and a hindfoot that no longer tolerates the fused ankle. Evaluation for takedown and conversion to TAR.

Patient Registry01 Presentation

Patient

Age

63

Sex

F

Occupation

Retired elementary school teacher

Relevant history

Pilon fracture at age 48 treated with ORIF, later converted to ankle arthrodesis at age 49 for painful post-traumatic arthritis. Fifteen years of reasonable function. In the last two years, progressive pain referred to the subtalar and talonavicular joints, with a compensatory antalgic gait.

Imaging02 Studies · 8 plates

Pre-op, intra-op, post-op.

01 · Pre-operative4 plates
02 · Intra-operative2 plates
03 · Post-operative2 plates
Clinical Reasoning03 Decision · 04 Technique

Clinical reasoning

The clinical question

Fifteen years after a well-executed ankle fusion for post-traumatic arthritis, this patient has developed progressive pain in the subtalar and talonavicular joints. She is otherwise active, a non-smoker, with good bone stock on CT and no evidence of talar AVN. The question: do we revise her to a pan-talar or tibiotalocalcaneal fusion, or do we convert her to a total ankle arthroplasty?

Imaging

Weightbearing radiographs showed a solid ankle fusion in neutral coronal alignment with significant adjacent-joint narrowing at the subtalar and talonavicular joints. CT confirmed the fusion was fully consolidated and — critically — that the talar body was intact with no AVN and adequate remaining bone stock for a contemporary TAR implant.

The decision

Conversion to TAR over revision fusion. The arguments for conversion in this patient: preserved talar bone stock, no AVN, no significant hindfoot malalignment, non-smoker, reasonable functional demands, and a strong preference from the patient for motion over additional fusion surgery. The arguments against — the technical demands of the operation and the historically higher complication rate of conversion versus primary TAR — were real but manageable in an experienced hands.

Operative approach

Anterior ankle approach incorporating the previous fusion scar. Tibial and fibular hardware removed. Fusion takedown performed with a thin osteotome along the original fusion line under fluoroscopic guidance. Once motion was restored at the tibiotalar interface, a contemporary fixed-bearing TAR implant was placed with standard instrumentation, accepting for the altered anatomy with careful component sizing. Polyethylene trial, stability check, and final implant seating completed the case.

No adjunct procedures were required at the same sitting — the subtalar and talonavicular joints were symptomatic but did not require fusion at the index operation.

Outcomes

Short-leg splint for two weeks, boot with graduated weightbearing through week six, walking shoe by week eight. At three months she was ambulating without an assistive device and her adjacent-joint pain had resolved. At one year she had maintained alignment, painless range of motion, and had returned to walking for exercise.

References

The conversion-from-fusion TAR literature is small but maturing. The studies from the Mayo, Duke, and International TAR groups are the primary references, along with the comparative series on conversion-versus-primary outcomes.

Clinical Pearls05 Outcome · 05 Notes

Clinical pearls

  1. The adjacent-joint arthritis rate after ankle fusion at fifteen to twenty years is high enough that this is a conversation every fusion patient needs at year one, not year fifteen.

  2. Conversion to TAR is a different operation than primary TAR. Expect thinner bone stock, altered anatomy, and a steeper learning curve. Do them early in your career with a partner, not on your own.

  3. CT is essential. Plain radiographs under-read the remaining talar bone stock and over-read the quality of the fusion.

  4. AVN of the talar body is the most important contraindication. If the talus is not well-vascularized, plan a TTC or a revision fusion, not a conversion.

  5. Patients need to understand that the goal of conversion is pain relief and restoration of a plantigrade gait, not sport-level performance. Set expectations accordingly.

Discussed on the PodcastCross-Reference

This case discussion is offered for educational and informational discussion among clinicians. It is not medical advice, does not establish a doctor-patient relationship, and is not a substitute for individualized clinical judgment, formal consultation, or institutional policy. Opinions expressed are conversational and do not represent a formal standard of care. Patient cases are de-identified; any resemblance to an identifiable patient is unintentional. Guests speak for themselves and not for Dr. Kadakia or The Ankl Man Podcast. See our full Terms and Legal Notice and Disclosures for details.