Skip to main content
Log in

Operative Versorgung des Charcot-Fußes am Rückfuß

Langzeitergebnisse und systematischer Überblick

Surgical treatment of the Charcot foot

Long-term results and systematic review

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Charcot-Arthropathie oder Neuroosteoarthropathie stellt aufgrund des ausgedehnten Knochenverlusts und der damit verbundenen komplexen Instabilität und Fußfehlstellung eine Herausforderung für den Orthopäden dar. Vorbestehende Ulzerationen erhöhen das Infektrisiko, da diese eine Eintrittspforte für diverse Keime darstellen können. Die Wahl der Behandlungsmethode ist also nicht nur für die korrekte Positionierung und die Endbelastbarkeit des Fußes entscheidend, sie trägt auch maßgeblich zur Vorbeugung von Hautirritationen bzw. der Sanierung von Ulzerationen bei. Vor allem plantare, durch prominente Exostosen oder Achsfehlstellungen hervorgerufene chronische Ulzerationen sind ohne operativen Eingriff nahezu nicht therapierbar. Die Diagnose verlangt eine individuelle Vorgehensweise, weshalb bisher noch kein strenges Therapieregime etabliert werden konnte.

Fragestellung

Zielsetzung war es, durch Senkung der Ulzerationsrate die Anzahl an Infektionen und damit auch der Gefahr einer Amputation zu minimieren. Zusätzlich wurden Komplikationen sowie Begleiterkrankungen ermittelt. Neben verschiedensten Osteosyntheseverfahren ist die tibiokalkaneare Arthrodese eine häufig angewandte Operationstechnik, auf die im Folgenden das Hauptaugenmerk gerichtet wurde.

Material und Methoden

Im Zeitraum von 12 Jahren (1999–2011) wurden 43 Patienten mit Charcot-Fuß (46 Füße) operativ versorgt. Zur Anwendung kamen Triple-, Talonavikular-, subtalare und tibiokalkaneare Arthrodesen sowie „Midfoot Fusion Bolts”. Die Versteifungen betrafen also den Rückfuß und Tarsus, wobei am häufigsten die tibiokalkaneare Arthrodese angewandt wurde. Essentieller Bestandteil der Behandlung war die sowohl prä- als auch postoperative Entlastung der betroffenen Extremität durch Unterschenkelgips, Aircast®-Walker-Stiefel oder Orthese. Nach Beendigung des postoperativen Procederes ist der orthopädische Maßschuh zur langfristigen Beschwerdefreiheit unverzichtbar.

Ergebnisse

Durch die operative Therapie konnten 16 präoperativ bestehende Ulzerationen auf verringert werden. Leider traten bei diesem Patientenstamm auch gehäuft Komplikationen, wie Infektionen, Pseudoarthrosen, Talusnekrosen und Wundheilungsstörungen auf. Es kam in Folge gehäuft zu Revisionsoperationen, wodurch der Großteil an Komplikationen behandelt werden konnte. Leider mussten in diesem Kollektiv dennoch 3 Amputationen durchgeführt werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Selbst durch striktes aseptisches Vorgehen und langjähriger Erfahrung kann es immer wieder zu Komplikationen kommen, die bis zum Verlust einer Extremität führen. Die Früherkennung ist der wichtigste Faktor beim Charcot-Fuß. Dadurch können Komplikationen vermieden und die Morbidität gesenkt werden. Begleiterkrankungen, wie Diabetes mellitus, bedürfen spezieller Betreuung und optimaler Therapie, da diese für ein schlechtes Outcome der chirurgischen Intervention wesentlich mitverantwortlich sind. Durch einen zeitnahen operativen Eingriff kann ein plantigrader, voll belastbarer Fuß rekonstruiert und Komplikationen vermieden werden. Langfristig erfordert der progrediente Krankheitsverlauf jedoch vielfach Folgeoperationen.

Abstract

Background

Because of extensive bone loss and the associated complex instability and deformity of the feet, Charcot arthropathy or neuroosteoarthropathy is a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon. Ulcerations offer entry of various bacteria; thus, infections are a frequent serious issue and complication. The careful choice of treatment is not only very important for the correct alignment of the foot and the loading capacity, but also contributes significantly to the prevention of skin irritation or the healing of existing ulcers. Above all, chronic plantar ulcerations, caused by prominent exostoses or axial malalignments are almost untreatable without surgery. Because diagnosis requires an individual approach, no strict regimen of therapy has become established.

Objectives

The major objective was to reduce the number of ulcerations and infections, and to minimize the risk of amputation. In addition, complications and comorbidities were determined. Tibio-calcaneal arthrodesis is a very frequently used surgical treatment option. Therefore, a special focus in the following article is on this method.

Materials and methods

In a 12-year period (1999–2011), 43 patients (46 feet) suffering from Charcot foot were treated surgically. The following were used: triple, talo-navicular, subtalar, tibio-calcaneal arthrodesis and midfoot fusion bolts. The arthrodesis related to the hindfoot and tarsus and most commonly the tibio-calcaneal arthrodesis was applied. The reduction of load on the affected foot preoperatively and postoperatively by white-cast, Aircast walker shoe or other orthesis is essential in the treatment. For a long-term satisfactory outcome, an orthopedic custom-made shoe is indispensable after surgical treatment.

Results

After surgical treatment of 16 feet with ulcerations, 14 could be healed and only 2 suffered from complications, such as infections, nonunions, talus necrosis, and wound healing disorder. Revision was frequently necessary, although the majority of complications could be treated. In this population, three amputations could not be prevented.

Conclusion

Even with strict aseptic techniques and years of experience in Charcot arthropathy, complications can occur, which can even lead to amputation. The early detection of the Charcot foot is the most important factor and helps to reduce morbidity and further complications. Co-morbid diseases (e.g., diabetes mellitus) need special care and optimal treatment, because they are often responsible for the poor surgical outcome. Finally, the ulceration rate and related complications, such as amputation, can be reduced by timely surgical treatment. Unfortunately, the progressive course of the disease often requires follow-up operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Ahmad J, Pour AE, Raikin SM (2007) The modified use of a proximal humeral locking plate for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 28:977–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aikawa T, Watanabe K, Matsubara H et al (2014) Tibiocalcaneal fusion for charcot ankle with severe talar body loss: case report and a review of the surgical literature. J Foot Ankle Surg doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2014.06.003

  3. Baumhauer JF, Wervey R, Mcwilliams J et al (1997) A comparison study of plantar foot pressure in a standardized shoe, total contact cast, and prefabricated pneumatic walking brace. Foot Ankle Int 18:26–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Botek G, Anderson MA, Taylor R (2010) Charcot neuroarthropathy: an often overlooked complication of diabetes. Cleve Clin J Med 77:593–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brower AC, Allman RM (1981) Pathogenesis of the neurotrophic joint: neurotraumatic vs. neurovascular. Radiology 139:349–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bussewitz B, Devries JG, Dujela M et al (2014) Retrograde intramedullary nail with femoral head allograft for large deficit tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 35:706–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Capobianco CM, Ramanujam CL, Zgonis T (2010) Charcot foot reconstruction with combined internal and external fixation: case report. J Orthop Surg Res 5:7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Caravaggi CM, Sganzaroli AB, Galenda P, Balaudo M, Gherardi P, Simonetti D, Ferraresi R, Farnetti A, Morandi A (2012) Long-term follow-up of tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis in diabetic patients with early chronic Charcot osteoarthropathy. J Foot Ankle Surg 51(4):408–411. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2012.04.007. Epub 2012 May 26

  9. Catanzariti AR, Mendicino R, Haverstock B (2000) Ostectomy for diabetic neuroarthropathy involving the midfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg: 39:291–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chantelau E, Onvlee GJ (2006) Charcot foot in diabetes: farewell to the neurotrophic theory. Horm Metab Res 38:361–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Conway JD (2008) Charcot salvage of the foot and ankle using external fixation. Foot Ankle Clin 13:157–173, vii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dalla Paola L, Volpe A, Varotto D, Postorino A, Brocco E, Senesi A, Merico M, De Vido D, Da Ros R, Assaloni R (2007) Use of a retrograde nail for ankle arthrodesis in Charcot neuroarthropathy: a limb salvage procedure. Foot Ankle Int 28(9):967–970

  13. Delhey P, Burklein D, Kessler S et al (2010) [Closed reposition of an acute midfoot luxation fracture in Charcot arthropathy with the ring fixator]. Unfallchirurg 113:594–597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Didomenico LA, Wargo-Dorsey M (2012) Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis using a femoral locking plate. J Foot Ankle Surg 51:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eckardt A, Schollner C, Decking J et al (2004) The impact of Syme amputation in surgical treatment of patients with diabetic foot syndrome and Charcot-neuro-osteoarthropathy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:145–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eichenholtz S (1966) Charcot joints. C. C. Thomas, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ennis WJ, Lee C, Plummer M et al (2011) Current status of the use of modalities in wound care: electrical stimulation and ultrasound therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(Suppl 1):93S-102S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fabrin J, Larsen K, Holstein PE (2000) Long-term follow-up in diabetic Charcot feet with spontaneous onset. Diabetes Care 23:796–800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Farber DC, Juliano PJ, Cavanagh PR et al (2002) Single stage correction with external fixation of the ulcerated foot in individuals with Charcot neuroarthropathy. Foot Ankle Int 23:130–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frykberg RG, Mendeszoon E (2000) Management of the diabetic Charcot foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 16(Suppl 1):S 59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garapati R, Weinfeld SB (2004) Complex reconstruction of the diabetic foot and ankle. Am J Surg 187:81S–86S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grant WP, Garcia-Lavin SE, Sabo RT et al (2009) A retrospective analysis of 50 consecutive Charcot diabetic salvage reconstructions. J Foot Ankle Surg 48:30–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grass R (2005) [Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis using a distally introduced femur nail (DFN)]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 17:426–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guyton GP (2005) An analysis of iatrogenic complications from the total contact cast. Foot Ankle Int 26:903–907

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hartsell HD, Fellner C, Saltzman CL (2001) Pneumatic bracing and total contact casting have equivocal effects on plantar pressure relief. Foot Ankle Int 22:502–506

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Herberger K, Franzke N, Blome C et al (2011) Efficacy, tolerability and patient benefit of ultrasound-assisted wound treatment versus surgical debridement: a randomized clinical study. Dermatology 222:244–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Illgner U, Podella M, Rummler M et al (2009) [Reconstructive surgery for Charcot foot. Long-term 5-year outcome]. Orthopade 38:1180–1186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Johnsen B (2007) Acute Charcot’s arthropathy: a difficult diagnosis. JAAPA 20:22–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kessler SB, Kalteis TA, Botzlar A (1999) [Principles of surgical treatment of diabetic neuropathic osteoarthropathy]. Internist (Berl) 40:1029–1035

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lamm BM, Siddiqui NA, Nair AK et al (2012) Intramedullary foot fixation for midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy. J Foot Ankle Surg 51:531–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bowker JH, Pfeifer MA (Hrsg) (2008) Levin and O’Neal’s the diabetic foot. Mosby, Philadelphia

  32. Lidor C, Ferris LR, Hall R et al (1997) Stress fracture of the tibia after arthrodesis of the ankle or the hindfoot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:558–564

  33. Lui TH (2012) Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis with combined retrograde intramedullary nail and lateral L-plate. J Foot Ankle Surg 51:693–695

  34. Mendicino RW, Catanzariti AR, Saltrick KR et al (2004) Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis with retrograde intramedullary nailing. J Foot Ankle Surg 43:82–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mittlmeier T, Klaue K, Haar P et al (2008) [Charcot foot. Current situation and outlook]. Unfallchirurg 111:218–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mittlmeier T, Klaue K, Haar P et al (2010) Should one consider primary surgical reconstruction in charcot arthropathy of the feet? Clin Orthop Related Res 468:1002–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mueckley TM, Eichorn S, Von Oldenburg G et al (2006) Biomechanical evaluation of primary stiffness of tibiotalar arthrodesis with an intramedullary compression nail and four other fixation devices. Foot Ankle Int 27:814–820

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Myerson MS, Alvarez RG, Lam PW (2000) Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis for the management of severe ankle and hindfoot deformities. Foot Ankle Int 21:643–650

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Sleegers R, Huijberts MS et al (2005) Total contact casting of the diabetic foot in daily practice: a prospective follow-up study. Diabetes Care 28:243–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pakarinen TK, Laine HJ, Honkonen SE et al (2002) Charcot arthropathy of the diabetic foot. Current concepts and review of 36 cases. Scand J Surg 91:195–201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Papa JA, Myerson MS (1992) Pantalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis for post-traumatic osteoarthrosis of the ankle and hindfoot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1042–1049

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Papa J, Myerson M, Girard P (1993) Salvage, with arthrodesis, in intractable diabetic neuropathic arthropathy of the foot and ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1056–1066

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pinzur MS (2007) Current concepts review: Charcot arthropathy of the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Int 28:952–959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pinzur MS, Noonan T (2005) Ankle arthrodesis with a retrograde femoral nail for Charcot ankle arthropathy. Foot Ankle Int 26:545–549

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rumenapf G, Lang W (2003) [Diabetic neuropathic osteoarthropathy (Charcot foot)]. Zentralbl Chir 128:734–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sammarco VJ, Sammarco GJ, Walker EW Jr et al (2009) Midtarsal arthrodesis in the treatment of Charcot midfoot arthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:80–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sammarco VJ, Sammarco GJ, Walker EW Jr et al (2010) Midtarsal arthrodesis in the treatment of Charcot midfoot arthropathy. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(Suppl 1 Pt 1):1–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sayner LR, Rosenblum BI (2005) External fixation for Charcot foot reconstruction. Curr Surg 62:618–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Serena T, Lee SK, Lam K et al (2009) The impact of noncontact, nonthermal, low-frequency ultrasound on bacterial counts in experimental and chronic wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage 55:22–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shibata T, Tada K, Hashizume C (1990) The results of arthrodesis of the ankle for leprotic neuroarthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:749–756

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tan J, Abisi S, Smith A et al (2007) A painless method of ultrasonically assisted debridement of chronic leg ulcers: a pilot study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 33:234–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Van Der Ven A Chapman CB Bowker JH (2009) Charcot neuroarthropathy of the foot and ankle. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:562–571

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A et al (2004) Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 27:1047–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wülker N (1998) Operationsatlas Fuß und Sprunggelenk. Enke, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zgonis T (2010) Surgical reconstruction of the diabetic foot and ankle. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H.-J. Trnka.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

N. Hartig, S. Krenn und H.-J. Trnka geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartig, N., Krenn, S. & Trnka, HJ. Operative Versorgung des Charcot-Fußes am Rückfuß. Orthopäde 44, 14–24 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-3058-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-3058-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation