Logo image
Back
Do Patient Positioning and Portal Placement for Arthroscopic Subtalar Arthrodesis Matter?
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Do Patient Positioning and Portal Placement for Arthroscopic Subtalar Arthrodesis Matter?

Alan G. Shamrock, Annunziato Amendola, Natalie A. Glass, Keith H. Shamrock, Christopher C. Cychosz, Christopher N. Carender and Kyle R. Duchman
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, Vol.8(7), pp.2325967120926451-2325967120926451
07/01/2020
DOI: 10.1177/2325967120926451
PMCID: PMC7346701
PMID: 32685565
url
https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc7346701View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Background: Arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis was first described over 2 decades ago and originally performed in the lateral decubitus or supine position using anterolateral and posterolateral portals situated about the fibula. More recently, several authors have advocated for prone positioning utilizing posteromedial and posterolateral portals with an optional accessory lateral portal. To date, a comparison of these techniques has been limited. Purpose: To determine the effect of patient positioning and portal placement on complication rates after arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Patients were placed into 1 of 3 groups: the lateral group if they were positioned lateral or supine with lateral-based portals; the 2-portal prone group if they were positioned prone with posteromedial and posterolateral portals; or the 3-portal prone group if posteromedial, posterolateral, and accessory lateral portals were utilized in the prone position. Inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects models were used to evaluate pooled estimates. Results: A total of 20 studies examining 484 feet in 468 patients with a mean follow-up of 36.1 months were included for analysis. Overall, 8 studies examined patients in the prone position with 2 posterior portals (n = 111; 22.9%), 7 articles evaluated lateral portals (n = 182; 37.6%), and 5 studies examined patients in the prone position with 3 portals (n = 191; 39.5%). The total complication rate was similar (P= .620) between the 2-portal prone (18.9%), 3-portal prone (17.8%), and lateral (17.6%) groups. There was no difference observed in the rate of complications secondary to portal placement (P >= .334), rate of painful hardware (P >= .497), and rate of repeat surgery (P >= .304). The 2-portal prone group had a significantly higher rate of nonunion than the lateral group (8.1% vs 1.1%, respectively;P= .020) but not the 3-portal prone group (5.8%;P= .198). Conclusion: The current study demonstrated a higher rate of nonunion following arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis with prone patient positioning using posteromedial and posterolateral portals without an accessory lateral portal.
 Life Sciences & Biomedicine Orthopedics Science & Technology Sport Sciences

Details

Metrics

13 Record Views
3 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image