Foot & Ankle

Ankle Arthrodesis

Ankle arthrodesis (open and arthroscopic) for FRCS/FRACS exam preparation

Core Procedure
intermediate
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

High-yield overview

Tibiotalar fusion via open (anterior/lateral) or arthroscopic approach | intermediate

Surgical Imaging

Imaging Gallery

Lateral compression plate applied to bone model demonstrating tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis fixation
Lateral plate for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: a long metallic compression plate with multiple screw holes applied to the lateral aspect of the distal tibia-fibula-calcaneus complex on a bone model, demonstrating the plate position and screw trajectory for this extended hindfoot fusion construct.Credit: Open-i NIH (PMC4799458) (CC BY PMC Open Access)
Intraoperative open ankle arthrodesis with drill inserted into exposed joint
Open ankle arthrodesis — intraoperative view: the tibiotalar joint is exposed via a lateral approach with the ankle joint surfaces debrided and a drill being inserted to prepare the subchondral bone. The lateral malleolus has been osteotomised to improve joint access, and the prepared bony surfaces are ready for screw fixation.Credit: Open-i NIH (PMC3296432) (CC BY PMC Open Access)
Four-panel radiograph comparison showing Methods A B C D for measuring tibiotalar alignment after ankle arthrodesis
Radiographic tibiotalar alignment assessment: four-panel lateral ankle X-ray series comparing Methods A, B, C, and D for measuring sagittal tibiotalar alignment after ankle arthrodesis. Each panel shows a different geometric axis or reference line used to quantify the fusion position, illustrating the importance of consistent post-operative alignment measurement.Credit: Open-i NIH (PMC4849723) (CC BY PMC Open Access)

Critical Danger Structures

Danger 1: Sural Nerve

Sural nerve (lateral approach). Location: Posterior to lateral malleolus, runs with short saphenous vein approximately 1 cm posterior to fibula in the distal leg. At risk during lateral approach, posterolateral portal placement, and fibula osteotomy. Protection: Identify and protect the nerve before incision in the posterolateral quarter; retract with vein. Injury causes painful dysaesthesia over lateral foot and fifth toe.

Danger 2: Superficial Peroneal Nerve

Superficial peroneal nerve (anterolateral approach). Location: Pierces deep fascia 10–12 cm proximal to tip of lateral malleolus; dorsal branch runs anterior to fibula toward the fourth toe. At risk during anterolateral portal or lateral incision placement. Protection: Plantarflex and invert foot to make nerve taut and visible; mark and avoid. Injury causes dysaesthesia over dorsum of foot.

Danger 3: Neurovascular Bundle

Dorsalis pedis artery and deep peroneal nerve (anterior approach). Location: DP artery lies between EHL and EDL tendons, deep peroneal nerve is immediately lateral to the artery on the anterior ankle. At risk during anterior plate application, aggressive retraction, and cartilage débridement. Protection: Identify and retract the bundle medially with EHL; apply anterior plate lateral to neurovascular bundle. Injury causes foot ischaemia or dorsal sensory loss.

Danger 4: Malposition — Equinus / Varus

Fusion malposition. The most common cause of poor functional outcome and revision surgery is equinus (plantarflexion) or varus fusion. Even 5° equinus translates to a 1.5 cm functional leg length discrepancy and abnormal knee stress. Prevention: Confirm position with intra-operative fluoroscopy in both AP and lateral planes before definitive screw placement. Use contralateral limb stance as reference for rotation.

Danger 5: Wound Healing — Anterior Approach

Anterior wound breakdown. The anterior ankle has sparse soft tissue coverage and a tenuous blood supply, making wound dehiscence and deep infection a serious risk, particularly in diabetic and Charcot patients. Protection: Handle soft tissues meticulously with full-thickness flaps; avoid skin tension at closure; consider staged closure or local flap in high-risk patients. Early recognition and aggressive management of wound problems prevents catastrophic deep infection.

Mnemonic

FVERTFVERT — Ideal Fusion Position

Mnemonic

SCANSCAN — Non-Union Risk Factors

Primary Indications

Absolute Indications

  • End-stage tibiotalar osteoarthritis (primary, post-traumatic, or rheumatoid) with failed conservative management (minimum 3–6 months of NSAIDs, physiotherapy, intra-articular injection, ankle-foot orthosis)
  • Tibiotalar OA following failed ORIF with retained or removed metalwork and joint destruction
  • Charcot neuroarthropathy of the ankle with instability or ulcer risk
  • Ankle instability with severe arthritis or after failed ligamentous reconstruction with arthritic change
  • Failed total ankle replacement with inadequate bone stock for revision TAR

Relative Indications

  • Avascular necrosis of the talus with joint involvement
  • Septic arthritis with residual tibiotalar destruction (staged: eradicate infection, then fuse)
  • Ankle tumour resection requiring reconstruction with fusion
  • Severe coronal or sagittal deformity not correctable by realignment osteotomy alone

Contraindications

  • Active deep infection (relative — staged approach possible)
  • Severe ipsilateral hindfoot or midfoot arthritis limiting compensatory motion
  • Contralateral lower limb amputation (fusion prevents compensatory gait adaptation)
  • Unrealistic patient expectations regarding functional outcome

Optimal Fusion Position

The four-point position is non-negotiable and must be confirmed fluoroscopically:

Sagittal plane — 0° (neutral): Neutral dorsiflexion aligns ankle joint reaction force through the tibia. Even 5° of equinus shifts loading to the forefoot, increases knee flexion demand, and is perceived as a functional leg length shortening.

Coronal plane — 5° valgus: Slight hindfoot valgus maintains the subtalar axis of compensation. Varus fusion is poorly tolerated, causing lateral border overload, peroneal tendon stress, and sural nerve symptoms.

Axial rotation — 5–10° external rotation: Must match the contralateral limb. Assessed clinically by comparing the second-toe axis. Excess external rotation causes compensatory knee external rotation stress; internal rotation causes patellofemoral pain.

Sagittal translation — mild posterior shift: Positioning the talus slightly posterior under the tibia shortens the anterior lever arm and reduces stress on the midfoot during terminal stance. Anterior talar subluxation increases midfoot loading significantly.

Key Evidence

Arthroscopic vs Open Arthrodesis

Townshend et al. (2013): Multicentre comparative case series of 60 patients (30 arthroscopic, 30 open) followed for 2 years. The primary outcome (Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale) and SF-36 physical component improved significantly in both groups; improvement was significantly greater and hospital stay shorter in the arthroscopic group, while complications, surgical time and radiographic alignment were similar.

Zvijac et al. (2002): Retrospective series of 21 arthroscopically assisted fusions; 20 of 21 (95%) united at a mean of 8.9 weeks. The single failure had extensive talar avascular necrosis (approximately 50% of the talus), reinforcing AVN and deformity as relative contraindications to the arthroscopic technique.

Ogilvie-Harris et al. (1993): 19 arthroscopically assisted fusions in ankles with minimal/no deformity, fixed with three percutaneous cannulated screws; 17 of 19 united (2 non-unions), with excellent or good results in 16. Established arthroscopic technique as viable for non-deformed arthritic ankles.

Current Recommendation: Arthroscopic arthrodesis is preferred for end-stage ankle OA without significant deformity (generally less than 15°) or talar AVN. Open technique is required for major deformity correction, Charcot arthropathy, bone loss requiring graft, or revision procedures.

Long-term Outcomes After Fusion

Coester et al. (2001): 23 patients with isolated post-traumatic ankle arthrodesis followed a mean of 22 years (longest follow-up reported). Ipsilateral subtalar, talonavicular, calcaneocuboid, naviculocuneiform, tarsometatarsal and first MTP arthritis were all significantly more severe than the contralateral side (each p less than 0.01), with significantly worse activity limitation, pain and disability — establishing accelerated adjacent-joint degeneration as the long-term cost of fusion. The knee was not significantly affected.

Hendrickx et al. (2011): Single-centre retrospective study of 60 patients (66 ankles) fused with a two-incision, three-screw technique. Primary union rate 91% (six required re-arthrodesis), mean AOFAS 67 and 91% satisfaction at a mean 9-year follow-up; significant radiographic progression of arthritis was seen in all adjacent joints.


Key Evidence

Arthroscopic versus open ankle arthrodesis: a multicentre comparative case series

Level III
Townshend D, Di Silvestro M, Krause F, et al. • J Bone Joint Surg Am (2013)
Clinical Implication: Arthroscopic arthrodesis is a valid alternative to open fusion for non-deformed end-stage ankle OA, with at least equivalent outcomes, a shorter stay, and similar complication and alignment profiles.

Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis

Level IV
Coester LM, Saltzman CL, Leupold J, Pontarelli W • J Bone Joint Surg Am (2001)
Clinical Implication: Counsel patients that successful ankle fusion accelerates foot (not knee) arthritis over decades — the central argument for offering motion-preserving total ankle replacement to suitable candidates.

Risk factors for nonunion following ankle arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Level III
Patel S, Baker L, Perez J, Vulcano E, Kaplan J, Aiyer A • Foot Ankle Spec (2021)
Clinical Implication: Stratify and optimise modifiable risk — enforce smoking cessation and treat infection before elective fusion — and counsel high-risk patients (open injury, AVN) on substantially higher non-union rates.

Intermediate-term results of total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis: a COFAS multicentre study

Level II
Daniels TR, Younger AS, Penner M, et al. • J Bone Joint Surg Am (2014)
Clinical Implication: When the procedure is matched to the patient, TAR and fusion give comparable intermediate patient-reported outcomes, but reoperation and major complications are higher after TAR — central to shared decision-making.

Medium- to long-term outcome of ankle arthrodesis

Level IV
Hendrickx RP, Stufkens SA, de Bruijn EE, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GM • Foot Ankle Int (2011)
Clinical Implication: A standard three-screw arthrodesis is reliable and safe with good medium-term function, but adjacent-joint arthritis progresses radiographically in nearly all patients.

Clinical Decision Scenarios

Use these scenarios to practise clinical reasoning and management decisions

CLINICAL SCENARIOStandard

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 48-year-old construction worker presents with 3 years of right ankle pain following a pilon fracture treated with ORIF 5 years ago. He has failed 12 months of NSAIDs, physiotherapy, intra-articular steroid injections, and an ankle-foot orthosis. Weight-bearing AP and lateral radiographs show complete tibiotalar joint space loss with subchondral sclerosis and a 10° varus deformity. He smokes 20 cigarettes per day. What is your assessment and plan?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This patient has end-stage post-traumatic tibiotalar osteoarthritis following pilon fracture ORIF, with clear surgical indication after exhaustive conservative management failure over 12 months. I would first confirm this is isolated tibiotalar arthritis by clinically assessing the subtalar and midfoot joints — if there is concomitant subtalar involvement, isolated tibiotalar fusion may be insufficient and a tibiotalocalcaneal fusion should be planned. I would obtain a CT scan to characterise the deformity fully, assess bone stock and subtalar joint, and identify retained hardware that may need removal or revision. Before scheduling surgery I would address modifiable risk factors, with smoking cessation being the highest priority — smoking doubles the non-union rate and this must be documented and enforced. I would set a minimum 4-week abstinence target before elective surgery. Given the 10° varus deformity, I would choose an open approach (anterior or transfibular) rather than arthroscopic, as arthroscopic technique is less reliable for deformity correction greater than 15°. My planned operation is open ankle arthrodesis with deformity correction — the tibial plafond cut will require a lateral-based wedge to correct the varus, aiming for 5° of valgus in the final position. Fixation would be with two crossed 6.5 mm cannulated partially threaded screws as standard, with consideration of an anterior locking plate for additional stability given the deformity correction and his high-demand occupation. I would counsel him that the union rate is approximately 90% in compliant non-smokers but is reduced to 75–80% if he continues smoking. I would explain the functional expectations: no ankle motion, but hip and subtalar compensation allows 80% of normal walking activities. Long-term adjacent joint arthritis affects 50–70% of patients at 20 years.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
"You proceed with open ankle arthrodesis and correct the deformity. At 3-month review, CT scan shows incomplete bridging and the patient is still smoking. What do you do?"
CLINICAL SCENARIOStandard

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 58-year-old woman had an ankle arthrodesis 8 months ago. She never became pain-free. CT scan shows no osseous bridging across the tibiotalar joint. She has fibrous union. What are the risk factors for non-union, how do you investigate this patient, and what is your management?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
Non-union following ankle arthrodesis affects 5–10% of patients overall but rises to 30–40% in high-risk populations. I would systematically assess this patient for modifiable and structural risk factors. Patient-related factors to investigate: smoking history (doubles non-union risk), diabetes and glycaemic control (HbA1c), peripheral vascular disease, osteoporosis, nutritional status (albumin, vitamin D), corticosteroid use, and rheumatoid arthritis or immunosuppression. Surgical factors to review: adequacy of the original cartilage débridement, fixation rigidity (were there only two screws or was a plate used?), and the fusion position (malposition increases shear stress across the fusion site and impairs union). Investigation begins with a full metabolic screen: FBC, CRP, ESR, HbA1c, vitamin D, calcium, albumin. I would obtain a CT scan with fine cuts (1 mm) through the fusion site to characterise precisely the extent of non-union — is there a complete gap with no bridging, or is there partial bridging at one cortex? I would aspirate the non-union site if there is any concern about low-grade infection, given that hardware loosening or elevated inflammatory markers raise this possibility. MRI can help identify avascular necrosis of the talus, which fundamentally changes the prognosis and surgical plan. Management is guided by the cause. All modifiable risk factors must be addressed before revision surgery: enforce smoking cessation, optimise glycaemic control to HbA1c below 8%, correct vitamin D deficiency. If fibrous union is pain-free and the patient has developed functional adaptation, I would consider conservative management with protected weight-bearing and orthosis. For symptomatic non-union, surgical revision is required: remove failed hardware, thoroughly debride the non-union site to fresh bleeding cancellous bone on both surfaces, pack with iliac crest autograft (gold standard for biologically deficient non-union), and apply rigid fixation — I would upgrade to an anterior locking plate or retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal nail depending on bone stock and deformity. Union rates after revision are approximately 70–80% with meticulous technique and risk-factor optimisation.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
"Intra-operatively at revision, you find that the talus is avascular with collapse of the talar body and significant bone loss. How does this change your surgical plan?"
CLINICAL SCENARIOStandard

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 62-year-old retired teacher has end-stage primary ankle osteoarthritis with mild-to-moderate tibiotalar joint space loss, 5° valgus deformity, preserved subtalar motion, and no prior ankle surgery. She asks you to compare ankle arthrodesis with total ankle replacement and help her decide. What are the key differences and how would you counsel her?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This is an excellent question that reflects a genuine clinical challenge in foot and ankle surgery, and both options are legitimate for this patient's profile. I would structure the comparison around four domains: durability, function, complications, and downstream joint effects. Ankle arthrodesis has a long track record with roughly 90% primary union and excellent pain relief. It is highly durable — a successful fusion provides permanent pain control without the risk of implant wear or loosening. However, fusion eliminates ankle motion entirely, which is compensated by the subtalar and midfoot joints. As established by Coester et al. in a 22-year follow-up study, this compensation accelerates adjacent joint degeneration: ipsilateral subtalar, talonavicular and midfoot arthritis are all significantly more severe than the contralateral side over two decades. Functionally, most patients walk well on level ground and can manage stairs and moderate activity but rarely return to running or high-impact sport. Total ankle replacement preserves a plantarflexion–dorsiflexion arc, providing a more natural gait pattern and theoretically reducing adjacent joint loading. Registry and single-centre series report implant survival in the region of 85–90% at 7–10 years for modern designs (for example the NJR and series such as Clough & Ring 2021, which reported 88% Zenith survival at 7 years), now approaching early hip and knee replacement data. In the COFAS multicentre cohort (Daniels 2014), patient-reported outcomes were comparable between TAR and fusion when treatment was matched to the patient. However, TAR carries higher reoperation and major complication rates — wound problems, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture and revision. When TAR fails, conversion to fusion is technically demanding and outcomes are inferior to primary fusion. For this particular patient — aged 62, low demand, preserved subtalar motion, mild deformity, no prior surgery, no infection history, and good bone stock — she is an excellent TAR candidate. I would present both options, explaining that TAR offers better functional outcomes and may protect adjacent joints, while fusion is more reliable and permanent with lower complication rates. I would involve the patient's preferences regarding risk tolerance and functional goals in the shared decision, and ensure she understands the 15–20% revision risk of TAR over 10 years.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
"If the patient chose total ankle replacement but subsequently developed symptomatic subtalar arthritis 5 years later, what are your management options?"

Ankle Arthrodesis — Exam Summary

Clinical summary

References

  1. Townshend D, Di Silvestro M, Krause F, et al. Arthroscopic versus open ankle arthrodesis: a multicenter comparative case series. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(2):98-102. PMID 23235956. Comparative case series (30 arthroscopic vs 30 open) showing comparable complications and alignment with greater early Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale improvement and shorter stay arthroscopically.

  2. Zvijac JE, Lemak L, Schurhoff MR, Hechtman KS, Uribe JW. Analysis of arthroscopically assisted ankle arthrodesis. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(1):70-75. PMID 11774145. Retrospective series of 21 arthroscopic fusions; 20/21 (95%) united at mean 8.9 weeks, the single failure having extensive talar AVN.

  3. Coester LM, Saltzman CL, Leupold J, Pontarelli W. Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(2):219-228. PMID 11216683. Landmark 22-year follow-up (23 patients) demonstrating significantly accelerated ipsilateral subtalar, talonavicular and midfoot arthritis after tibiotalar fusion.

  4. Hendrickx RP, Stufkens SA, de Bruijn EE, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GM. Medium- to long-term outcome of ankle arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(10):940-947. PMID 22224322. Retrospective study of 60 patients (66 ankles) with a two-incision three-screw technique; 91% primary union and good function at a mean 9 years.

  5. Patel S, Baker L, Perez J, Vulcano E, Kaplan J, Aiyer A. Risk factors for nonunion following ankle arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Spec. 2021;16(1):60-77. PMID 33660542. Meta-analysis (13 studies, 987 patients) identifying smoking, male sex and prior infection as strong predictors of non-union.

  6. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Lieberman I, Fitsialos D. Arthroscopically assisted arthrodesis for osteoarthrotic ankles. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(8):1167-1174. PMID 8354675. Original series of 19 arthroscopic fusions with three-screw fixation; 17/19 united (2 non-unions), establishing the technique for non-deformed ankles.

  7. Saltzman CL, Mann RA, Ahrens JE, et al. Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(7):579-596. PMID 19589303. Non-randomised multicentre controlled (concurrent fusion controls) non-inferiority trial; equivalent pain relief and better function with STAR TAR at 24 months, with more secondary procedures.

  8. Daniels TR, Younger AS, Penner M, et al. Intermediate-term results of total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis: a COFAS multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(2):135-142. PMID 24430413. Prospective cohort (388 ankles) showing comparable patient-reported outcomes but higher reoperation (17% vs 7%) and major complications (19% vs 7%) after TAR than fusion.

  9. Clough TM, Ring J. Total ankle arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(4):696-703. PMID 33789488. Single-centre series of 118 Zenith TAAs with 88% implant survival at 7 years, comparable to National Joint Registry data.

  10. Myerson MS, Alvarez RG, Lam PW. Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis for the management of severe ankle and hindfoot deformities. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(8):643-650. Technique description and outcomes for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis using retrograde intramedullary nailing for complex hindfoot pathology including Charcot arthropathy.