Complications Associated with Triple Arthrodesis Versus Non-Fusion Flatfoot Reconstruction: A Matched Cohort Study. Issue 4 (22nd October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Probasco, William V.; Stein, Benjamin E.; Fassihi, Cyrus; McDaniel, Lea
• Is Part Of: Foot & ankle orthopaedics. Volume 5:Issue 4(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-10-22
• Subjects: Arthrodesis -- AAFD -- Complications; Foot -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Ankle -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; 617.584
• DOI: 10.1177/2473011420S00393
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2473-0114

Abstract

Category: Hindfoot; Midfoot/Forefoot; Other Introduction/Purpose: Pes planovalgus is a very common deformity of the foot, often resulting from adult acquired flatfoot disorder (AAFD). This deformity in its early stages is treated conservatively with non-operatively modalities such as bracing, however in its later stages often requires surgical correction of the deformity in order to improve the pain and function of the extremity. Two commonly performed procedures in the correction of this type of deformity are a triple arthrodesis or joint sparing flatfoot reconstruction. The objective of this study was to identify whether differences existed in the financial burden or complication rates of non-fusion flatfoot reconstruction versus triple arthrodesis. Methods: The PearlDiver Database was queried from 2006-2013 to identify all Medicare patients who were admitted for a triple arthrodesis or non-fusion flatfoot reconstruction. 2308 patients were identified in each cohort and statistically matched in a 1:1 manner to control for influence of demographics and/or comorbidities. Postoperative complication rates (within 30 days) were evaluated and broken down into major (PE/DVT, MI, CVA, sepsis, mortality, nerve injury) and minor (UTI, PNA, hardware failure, transfusion, wound complications) categories. Additionally, total cost of care including cost of readmissions, and readmission within 30 days were evaluated. Results: No significant differences were noted in the postoperative complication rates between the two procedures within the first 30 days post-operatively in the initial univariate regression. There was a significant difference in the rate of 30 day readmission with 2.3% of triple arthrodeses being readmitted vs. 1.08% in the non-fusion joint reconstruction group (p=.002). Adjusted multivariate regression yielded similar results, with no significant differences in postoperative complication rates. The difference in readmission rate remained significant in the multivariate regression (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33-3.51, p=.002). Significant differences were also noted for mean total cost of care, with a higher mean total cost identified for the fusion group (x=7, 868.0) compared to the reconstruction group (x=4, 064.49, p<.001, Adjusted 𝛽𝛽 3, 836.71, 95% CI 3, 525.23 to 4, 148.19, p<.001). Conclusion: This study compared triple arthrodesis versus joint-sparing flatfoot reconstruction. Within this study group there was no difference in complications between the two procedures. There was a significantly higher incidence of 30-day readmission in the triple arthrodesis group by about 2-fold. When comparing the total cost of care, there was a significantly higher cost associated with the triple arthrodesis, which cost on average about $3800 more than joint sparing flatfoot reconstruction. While revealing with regard to the aforementioned variables within the first 30 days post-operatively, further research needs to be conducted on the long term outcomes of these procedures.