This article reviews ankle joint replacement, a relatively uncommon procedure, when compared with knee or hip replacement. This topic is of interest as ankle replacement surgery is a procedure that may be unknown to many readers. A graphic and overview of an ankle replacement is provided below. This story provides a general overview of the topic including risks and benefits. However, the lead-in should have been more specific to clarify that knee and hip replacement are most often associated with osteoarthritis, the most common form of arthritis, while ankle replacement is largely performed in patients with post-traumatic osteoarthritis and the much less common rheumatoid arthritis. This story provides very little scientific evidence or independent expert testimony to support the information provided. In addition, the main expert interviewed has a financial relationship with the company that produces the implant he uses. It is possible that this creates an incentive to use this procedure more and to describe it in a more positive light. This story also has other omissions and inaccuracies including the cost of the procedure and that 5, not 4, devices are FDA approved.
This is a relatively uncommon procedure that many readers may not be aware of. Unfortunately this column didn’t do the best job of presenting the information in a complete and balanced manner.
This article does not discuss costs – a significant oversight.
Potential benefits including, decreased pain, improved physical function and quality of life, are mentioned – but no data is provided. How often do these occur? That’s a pretty important piece of information for readers.
The story presents some risks, i.e. replacement failure, loosening, slow healing, infection and amputation. It also mentions that not all individuals are appropriate candidates for surgery. It could have provided numbers for how often these harms occur. Nonetheless. we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion and grade it barely satisfactory.
No real concrete scientific evidence is presented in the story. General points are made, such as the concern of failed surgery or loosening of the artificial joint; however, these points were not backed up by published data. The article quotes an expert saying that 90% of ankle replacements last about eight and a half years. A citation of this information would have been helpful to include. Data suggests that these results may be applicable for a much shorter time frame on average and that the survival rate of implants may be quite variable. For example, one recent publication indicates that the 5 year implant survival rate is about 78% and that approximately 7% of implants require revision surgery within 5 years.
Borderline. The numbers fly fast and furious – "Each year about two million Americans visit the doctor for ankle pain from arthritis or fracture. An estimated 50,000 people a year experience end-stage ankle arthritis." In framing the ankle as "fast becoming a candidate" for joint replacement, there is a whiff of disease-mongering in the air. Given the sourcing on the story – all experts with potential conflicts of interest – we’re going to give this one a thumbs down.
The story clearly indicates that all of the experts interviewed had ties to manufacturers of the joint implants. While this may be expected due to the relatively small number of surgeons who perform this procedure, this is a clear example of conflict of interest. The story should have included comment from an independent unconflicted surgeon or referring physician (non-surgeon) with no stake in this. Disclosure is one thing; providing balance is quite another.
This article correctly indicates that ankle fusion is the only surgical option to joint replacement. Many experts consider ankle fusion to be a highly successful procedure that relieves pain for many patients despite some loss ankle flexibility. A more detailed comparison of the procedures would have been informative to the readers. In addition, the story should have indicated that non-surgical options such as medication, physical therapy and orthotics, are the more common treatment approaches.
This story correctly notes that ankle replacement has been available for several decades but is not widely performed. However, there was an omission in not indicating that that knee and hip replacement are most often associated with osteoarthritis, the most common form of arthritis, while ankle replacement is largely performed in patients with post-traumatic osteoarthritis and the much less common rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, the article inaccurately states that 4 models are FDA approved. A fifth model, the STAR, which has a unique design, was FDA approved in May 2009.
This story highlights a procedure that may readers may not be aware of because it is not commonly performed although it has been available for some time.
It does not appear that the article is based on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like