History of Total Ankle Replacement in North America

  • Nikolaos GougouliasEmail author
  • Nicola Maffulli


Attempts at total ankle replacement (TAR) have existed for at least 55 years. Time has essentially eliminated constrained, cemented, first-generation prostheses. Although some two-component, more anatomical designs are still used and with varying success, it seems that three-component mobile-bearing ankle prostheses are the predominant design utilized in Europe and in North America despite two-component designs being more prevalent. Not only did the prostheses change over the years but also the patients and surgeons. Surgeons specialize in foot and ankle surgery, improving their surgical outcomes and expanding the indications for TAR, in technically demanding, “complex” ankles. The future will set the limits, as enthusiasm over bright ideas was often followed by skepticism. We provide a thorough review on the history of TARs that have been and are currently in use in North America.


Agility Total Ankle Replacement System Ankle prosthesis Foot and ankle surgery Hintegra Total Ankle Prosthesis History Mobility Total Ankle System Salto Talaris Total Ankle Prosthesis Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement System Total ankle arthroplasty 


  1. 1.
    Gougoulias N, Maffulli N. History of total ankle replacement. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2013;30(1):1–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gougoulias NE, Khanna A, Maffulli N. History and evolution in total ankle arthroplasty. Br Med Bull. 2009;89(1):111–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Easley ME, Adams Jr SB, Hembree WC, DeOrio JK. Results of total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(15):1455–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou LB, Coughlin MT, Hansen Jr S, Haskell A, Lundeen G, Saltzman CL, Mann RA. Osteoarthritis of the ankle: the role of arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(5):249–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guyer AJ, Richardson G. Current concepts review: total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(2):256–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cracchiolo III A, Deorio JK. Design features of current total ankle replacements: implants and instrumentation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(9):530–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Learmonth I, Young C, Rorebeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Argeiter M, Stockl B. Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(3):293–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hahn ME, Wright ES, Segal AD, Orendurff MS, Ledoux WR, Sangeorzan BJ. Comparative gait analysis of ankle arthrodesis and arthroplasty: initial findings of a prospective study. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(4):282–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeHeer PA, Catoire SM, Taulman J, Borer B. Ankle arthrodesis: a literature review. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2012;29(4):509–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coester LM, Saltzmann CL, Leupold J, Pontarelli W. Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for posttraumatic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2001;83(2):219–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gougoulias N, Khanna A, Maffulli N. How successful are current ankle replacements?: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):199–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haddad SL, Coetzee JC, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Nalysnyk L. Intermediate and long-term outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis. A systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(9):1899–905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaidi R, Cro S, Gurusamy K, Siva N, Macgregor A, Henricson A, Goldberg A. The outcome of total ankle replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(11):1500–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lord G, Marotte JH. Total ankle prosthesis. Technic and 1st results. Apropos of 12 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1973;59(2):139–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eloesser L. Implantation of joints. Cal State J Med. 1913;11(12):485–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muir DC, Amendola A, Saltzman CL. Forty-year outcome of ankle “cup” arthroplasty for post-traumatic arthritis. Iowa Orthop J. 2002;22:99–102.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lord G, Marotte JH. Total ankle replacement. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1980;66(8):527–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buchholz HW, Engelbrecht E, Siegel A. Totale Sprunggelenksendoprothese Model St. Georg. Chirurg. 1973;44:241–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engelbrecht E. Ankle endoprosthesis model “St. George”. Z Orthop Grenz. 1975;113(4):546–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freeman MA, Kempson MA, Tuke MA. Total replacement of the ankle with the ICLH prosthesis. Int Orthop. 1979;2(4):237–331.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bolton-Maggs BG, Sudlow RA, Freeman MA. Total ankle arthroplasty. A long-term review of the London Hospital experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67(5):785–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wynn AH, Wilde AH. Long-term follow up of the Conaxial (Beck-Steffee) total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle. 1992;13(6):303–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carlsson ÅS, Henricson A, Linde L, Redlund‐Johnell I. A 10-year survival analysis of 69 Bath and Wessex ankle replacements. Foot Ankle Surg. 2001;71(1):39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jensen NC, Kroner K. Total ankle joint replacement: a clinical follow-up. Orthopedics. 1992;15(2):236–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schill S, Biehl C, Thabe H. Ankle prostheses. Mid-term results after Thompson-Richards and STAR prostheses. Orthopade. 1998;27(3):183–7.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wood PLR, Clough TM, Jari S. Comparison of two total ankle replacements. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(7):546–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirkup J. Richard Smith ankle arthroplasty. J R Soc Med. 1985;78(4):301–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tanaka Y, Takakura Y. The TNK ankle. Short- and mid-term results. Orthopade. 2006;35(5):546–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nishikawa M, Tomita T, Fujii M, Watanabe T, Hashimoto J, Sugamoto K, Ochi T, Yoshikawa H. Total ankle replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Int Orthop. 2004;28(2):123–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waugh TR, Evanski PM, McMaster WC. Irvine ankle arthroplasty: prosthetic design and surgical technique. Clin Orthop. 1976;114:180–4.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newton III SE. Total ankle arthroplasty. Clinical study of fifty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(1):104–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stauffer RN, Segal NM. Total ankle arthroplasty: four years’ experience. Clin Orthop. 1981;160:217–21.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kitaoka HB, Patzer GL. Clinical results of the Mayo total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(11):1658–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pappas MJ, Buechel FF, DePalma AF. Cylindrical total ankle joint replacement: surgical and biomechanical rationale. Clin Orthop. 1976;118:82–92.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hvid I, Rasmussen O, Jensen NC, Nielsen S. Trabecular bone strength profiles at the ankle joint. Clin Orthop. 1985;199:306–12.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Knecht SI, Estin M, Callaghan JJ, Zimmerman MB, Alliman KJ, Alvine FG, Saltzman CL. The Agility total ankle arthroplasty. Seven to sixteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(6):1161–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Feldman MH, Rockwood J. Total ankle arthroplasty: a review of 11 current ankle implants. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2004;21(3):393–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pyevich MT, Saltzman CL, Callaghan JJ, et al. Total ankle arthroplasty: a unique design. Two to twelve-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1410–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hurowitz EJ, Gould JS, Fleising GS, et al. Outcome analysis of agility total ankle replacement with prior adjunctive procedures: two to six year follow up. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:308–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sprit AA, Assal M, Hansen Jr ST. Complications and failure after total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86:1172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kopp FJ, Patel MM, Deland JT, O’Malley MJ. Total ankle arthroplasty with the Agility prosthesis: clinical and radiographic evaluation. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:97–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roukis TS. Incidence of revision after primary implantation of the Agility total ankle replacement system: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;51(2):198–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cerrato R, Myerson MS. Total ankle replacement: the Agility LP prosthesis. Foot Ankle Clin. 2008;3(3):485–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ, Iorio LJ. New Jersey low contact stress total ankle replacement: biomechanical rationale and review of 23 cementless cases. Foot Ankle. 1988;8(6):279–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
    Buechel Sr FF, Buechel Jr FF, Pappas MJ. Twenty-year evaluation of cementless mobile-bearing total ankle replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;424:19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Doets HC, Brand R, Nelissen RG. Total ankle arthroplasty in inflammatory joint disease with use of two mobile-bearing designs. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(6):1272–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    San Giovanni TP, Keblish DJ, Thomas WH, Wilson MG. Eight-year results of a minimally constrained total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(6):418–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kofoed H, Sorensen TS. Ankle arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(2):328–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rippstein PF, Huber M, Coetzee JC, Naal FD. Total ankle replacement with use of a new three-component implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(15):1426–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wood PL, Karski MT, Watmough P. Total ankle replacement: the results of 100 mobility total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(7):958–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Muir D, Aoina J, Hong T, Mason R. The outcome of the Mobility total ankle replacement at a mean of four years: can poor outcomes be predicted from pre- and post-operative analysis? Bone Joint J. 2013;95(1):1366–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Roukis TS, Prissel MA. Registry data trends of total ankle replacement use. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(6):728–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Besse JL, Brito N, Lienhart C. Clinical evaluation and radiographic assessment of bone lysis of the AES total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(10):964–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Goldberg AJ, Sharp RJ, Cooke P. Ankle replacement: current practice of foot and ankle surgeons in the United Kingdom. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(1):950–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kokkonen A, Ikävalko M, Tiihonen R, Kautiainen H, Belt EA. High rate of osteolytic lesions in medium-term follow-up after the AES total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(2):168–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
  60. 60.
    Bonnin M, Gaudot F, Laurent JR, Ellis S, Colombier JA, Judet T. The Salto total ankle arthroplasty: survivorship and analysis of failures at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:225–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schenk K, Lieske S, John M, Franke K, Mouly S, Lizee E, Neumann W. Prospective study of a cementless, mobile-bearing, third generation total ankle prosthesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(8):755–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schweitzer KM, Adams SB, Viens NA, Queen RM, Easley ME, Deorio JK, Nunley JA. Early prospective clinical results of a modern fixed-bearing total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1002–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gaudot F, Colombier JA, Bonnin M, Judet T. A controlled, comparative study of a fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(2):131–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kofoed H. Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;424:73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
  66. 66.
    Wood PLR, Prem H, Sutton C. Total ankle replacement. Medium-term results in 200 Scandinavian total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(5):605–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Karantana A, Hobson S, Dhar S. The Scandinavian total ankle replacement: survivorship at 5 and 8 years comparable to other series. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(4):951–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhao H, Yang Y, Yu G, Zhou J. A systematic review of outcome and failure rate of uncemented Scandinavian total ankle replacement. Int Orthop. 2011;35(12):1751–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Anderson T, Montgomery F, Carlsson Å. Uncemented STAR total ankle prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85(7):321–9.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Carlsson Å. Single- and double-coated star total ankle replacements: a clinical and radiographic follow-up study of 109 cases. Orthopade. 2006;35(5):527–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Henricson A, Nilsson JÅ, Carlsson A. 10-year survival of total ankle arthroplasties: a report on 780 cases from the Swedish Ankle Register. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(6):655–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fevang BTS, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Brun JG, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. 257 ankle arthroplasties performed in Norway between 1994 and 2005. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(5):575–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Valderabano V, Hintermann B, Dick W. Scandinavian total ankle replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;424:47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Saltzman CL, Mann RA, Ahrens JE, Amendola A, Anderson RB, Berlet GC, Brodsky JW, Chou LB, Clanton TO, Deland JT, Deorio JK, Horton GA, Lee TH, Mann JA, Nunley JA, Thordarson DB, Walling AK, Wapner KL, Coughlin MJ. Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(7):579–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mann JA, Mann RA, Horton E. STAR ankle: long-term results. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(5):473–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Barg A, Knupp M, Henninger HB, Zwicky L, Hintermann B. Total ankle replacement using Hintegra, an unconstrained, three-component system: surgical technique and pitfalls. Foot Ankle Clin. 2012;17(4):607–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Barg A, Zwicky L, Knupp M, Henninger HB, Hintermann B. Hintegra total ankle replacement: survivorship analysis in 684 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(13):1175–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hintermann B, Zwicky L, Knupp M, Henninger HB, Barg A. Hintegra revision arthroplasty for failed total ankle prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(13):1166–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Labek G, Klaus H, Schlichtherle R, Williams A, Agreiter M. Revision rates after total ankle arthroplasty in sample-based clinical studies and national registries. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(8):740–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Daniels TR, Younger AS, Penner M, Wing K, Dryden PJ, Wong H, Glazebrook M. Intermediate-term results of total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis: a COFAS multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(2):135–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lee KT, Jegal H, Park YU, Kim JB, Lee YK, Yeo ED, Yang SS, Yoon SA. Comparison of sagittal subluxation in two different three-component total ankle replacement systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(12):1661–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Choi GW, Kim HJ, Yeo ED, Song SY. Comparison of the Hintegra and Mobility total ankle replacements. Short- to intermediate-term outcomes. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(8):1075–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Scott RT, Witt BL, Hyer CF. Design comparison of the INBONE I versus INBONE II total ankle system. Foot Ankle Spec. 2013;6(2):137–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Abicht BP, Roukis TS. The INBONE II total ankle system. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2013;30(1):47–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    DeOrio JK. Revision INBONE total ankle replacement. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2013;30(2):225–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Clement RC, Krynetskiy E, Parekh SG. The total ankle arthroplasty learning curve with third-generation implants: a single surgeon’s experience. Foot Ankle Spec. 2013;6(4):263–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Datir A, Xing M, Kakarala A, Terk MR, Labib SA. Radiographic evaluation of INBONE total ankle arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of 30 cases. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42(12):1693–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ellis S, Deorio JK. The INBONE total ankle replacement. Oper Tech Orthop. 2010;20(3):201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Adams SB, Demetracopoulos CA, Queen RM, Easley ME, DeOrio JK, Nunley JA. Early to mid-term results of fixed-bearing total ankle arthroplasty with a modular intramedullary tibial component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(23):1983–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Valderrabano V, Pagenstert GI, Müller AM, Paul J, Henninger HB, Barg A. Mobile- and fixed-bearing total ankle prostheses: is there really a difference? Foot Ankle Clin. 2012;17(4):565–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Trauma and OrthopaedicsFrimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley Park HospitalFrimleyUK
  2. 2.Department of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SalernoSalernoItaly
  3. 3.Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, William Harvey Research Institute, Centre for Sports and Exercise MedicineQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations