LAUSR

Purpose: Ankle Charcot neuroarthropathy presents a great challenge for treatment. While conservative treatments yield poor results, arthrodesis is considered the treatment of choice for unstable Charcot ankles. There are two methods used for ankle fusion: retrograde intramedullary nail (IMN) and external fixator (EF). Literature reports inconclusive results on which method is better for arthrodesis. Methods: The aim of this meta-analysis is to look for significant difference between the two techniques in terms of fusion rate and complications. Four comparative studies including 117 patients (117 interventions) were located and analyzed. Results: IMN was found to yield double fusion rate than EF (p = 0.2) with 5 weeks less time to heal (p = 0.4). While no significance was noted for revision surgery and amputation rates, EF yielded higher rates of hardware infection (p = 0.01) and wound infection (p = 0.01). The IMN method seems to offer quicker and better fusion rate when compared to EF with significantly lower postoperative infection rates. Conclusion: In the clinical context of high-risk patients such as the diabetic population, IMN technique could be a better option in the case of ulcer-free ankles/feet or in the presence of medial/lateral ulcers. In case of presence of plantar ulcers, EF might be a better choice to avoid the plantar approach for nail insertion. Future research with bigger sample sized and randomized studies are warranted for validation.