Categories: Q&A

Joint Replacement Versus Fusion For Ankle Arthritis

Ankle arthritis continues to be a health complaint that thwarts the best efforts of the medical profession to get it under control and so no matter whatever the treatment option that is relied upon, the patient will have to contend with high risks, serious and even potentially fatal side effects and risks, along with a significant amount of long term pain and instability of the joint, in addition to disability.

Broadly speaking, the two primary methods of dealing with ankle arthritis are ankle fusion and ankle joint replacement. As with any other form of medical intervention, there are pros and cons associated with each of these treatment options for the management of ankle arthritis and so the purpose of this article is intended to provide the reader with a better overview as to these.

What are the benefits of ankle replacement?

Whereas ankle fusion will necessitate the total elimination of the natural movement of the ankle joint, ankle replacement will help to preserve the natural flexibility and range of motion of the ankle joint.
Significant pain relief has been reported among people who have the procedure.
Patients will be able to enjoy some degree of physical activity with sports.
Can be used to delay the need for the more joint destructive method, ankle fusion.

What are the risks of ankle replacement

The prosthetic may break down and wear out, requiring revision surgery to take place.
Risk of infection directly caused by the implant itself.
The patient may outlive the prosthetic, meaning that it is at best, a short term fix.
Extremely costly, and the fact it is classed as experimental by many healthcare insurance providers means that patients will usually have to go private and pay for it themselves.