Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2023 Mar;27(5):1–80. doi: 10.3310/PTYJ1146

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT.

Andrew J Goldberg, Kashfia Chowdhury, Ekaterina Bordea, James Blackstone, Deirdre Brooking, Elizabeth L Deane, Iva Hauptmannova, Paul Cooke, Marion Cumbers, Simon S Skene, Caroline J Doré
PMCID: PMC10150410  PMID: 37022932

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery.

RESULTS

Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime.

LIMITATIONS

This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling.

FUTURE WORK

We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Each year, over 29,000 patients with ankle osteoarthritis seek a specialist opinion, of whom 4000 undergo NHS surgical treatment. The main surgical treatments for severe ankle osteoarthritis are total ankle replacement or arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion). Both are known to be good treatments to relieve pain, and each has its advantages. Total ankle replacement is a more popular patient choice than ankle fusion. When deciding whether to undergo ankle replacement or fusion, patients consult various sources, but the majority of them rely on the advice of their surgeon to make a final decision. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatments and there are no published guidelines on the most suitable management. In this study, 303 patients were randomised to a type of ankle surgery: 138 in the total ankle replacement arm and 144 in the ankle fusion arm received surgery. We found that both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients’ walking ability, but we did not find a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms based on our primary outcome measure at 1 year. When we considered the type of total ankle replacement implant, we found that the implant most commonly used in the NHS (a fixed-bearing two-component implant) had better outcomes at 1 year than ankle fusion. Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion appear to be safe. However, there were more wound-healing issues and nerve injuries in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. Twelve per cent of patients experienced bone non-union in the ankle fusion arm, but only 7.1% experienced symptoms. We estimate that there is a 69% chance that total ankle replacement would be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient’s lifetime. This study provides the NHS with important information that could help to obtain the best possible outcome for patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Saltzman CL, Zimmerman MB, O’Rourke M, Brown TD, Buckwalter JA, Johnston R. Impact of comorbidities on the measurement of health in patients with ankle osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2366–72. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00295 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00295. [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Glazebrook M, Daniels T, Younger A, Foote CJ, Penner M, Wing K, et al. Comparison of health-related quality of life between patients with end-stage ankle and hip arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:499–505. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01299 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01299. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Goldberg AJ, MacGregor A, Dawson J, Singh D, Cullen N, Sharp RJ, Cooke PH. The demand incidence of symptomatic ankle osteoarthritis presenting to foot & ankle surgeons in the United Kingdom. Foot 2012;22:163–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2012.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2012.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Delco ML, Kennedy JG, Bonassar LJ, Fortier LA. Post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the ankle: a distinct clinical entity requiring new research approaches. J Orthop Res 2017;35:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23462 doi: 10.1002/jor.23462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics 2017/18. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2018.
  6. Buchner M, Sabo D. Ankle fusion attributable to posttraumatic arthrosis: a long-term followup of 48 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;406:155–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000038046.63743.c3 doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000038046.63743.c3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Fuchs S, Sandmann C, Skwara A, Chylarecki C. Quality of life 20 years after arthrodesis of the ankle. A study of adjacent joints. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:994–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.85b7.13984 doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b7.13984. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Cooper PS. Complications of ankle and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;391:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200110000-00006 doi: 10.1097/00003086-200110000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ. Twenty-year evaluation of cementless mobile-bearing total ankle replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;424:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000132243.41419.59 doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000132243.41419.59. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Schuberth JM, Patel S, Zarutsky E. Perioperative complications of the Agility total ankle replacement in 50 initial, consecutive cases. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45:139–46. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2006.02.013 doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2006.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Lee KB, Cho YJ, Park JK, Song EK, Yoon TR, Seon JK. Heterotopic ossification after primary total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:751–8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00178 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00178. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Stengel D, Bauwens K, Ekkernkamp A, Cramer J. Efficacy of total ankle replacement with meniscal-bearing devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005;125:109–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0765-3 doi: 10.1007/s00402-004-0765-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  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;89:1899–905. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200709000-00002 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200709000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Saltzman CL, Mann RA, Ahrens JE, Amendola A, Anderson RB, Berlet GC, et al. Prospective controlled trial of STAR total ankle replacement versus ankle fusion: initial results. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30:579–96. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0579 doi: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0579. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Gougoulias N, Khanna A, Maffulli N. How successful are current ankle replacements?: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0987-3 doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0987-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Slobogean GP, Younger A, Apostle KL, Marra CA, Wing K, Penner M, et al. Preference-based quality of life of end-stage ankle arthritis treated with arthroplasty or arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int 2010;31:563–6. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2010.0563 doi: 10.3113/FAI.2010.0563. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Esparragoza L, Vidal C, Vaquero J. Comparative study of the quality of life between arthrodesis and total arthroplasty substitution of the ankle. J Foot Ankle Surg 2011;50:383–7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2011.03.004 doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2011.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Krause FG, Windolf M, Bora B, Penner MJ, Wing KJ, Younger AS. Impact of complications in total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis analyzed with a validated outcome measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:830–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00103 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00103. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Kwon DG, Chung CY, Park MS, Sung KH, Kim TW, Lee KM. Arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle arthritis: decision analysis using Markov model. Int Orthop 2011;35:1647–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1336-1 doi: 10.1007/s00264-011-1336-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. 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;96:135–42. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01597 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01597. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Veljkovic AN, Daniels TR, Glazebrook MA, Dryden PJ, Penner MJ, Wing KJ, Younger ASE. Outcomes of total ankle replacement, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis, and open ankle arthrodesis for isolated non-deformed end-stage ankle arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:1523–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01012 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. National Joint Registry. 17th Annual Report: Surgical Data to 31 December 2019. 2020. URL: https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2017th%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf (accessed 20 March 2021).
  23. 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–B:1500–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31633 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31633. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. SooHoo NF, Zingmond DS, Ko CY. Comparison of reoperation rates following ankle arthrodesis and total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:2143–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200710000-00007 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200710000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Goldberg AJ, Zaidi R, Thomson C, Doré CJ, Skene SS, Cro S, et al. Total ankle replacement versus arthrodesis (TARVA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012716. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012716 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Muller P, Skene SS, Chowdhury K, Cro S, Goldberg AJ, Doré CJ, TARVA Study Group. A randomised, multi-centre trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of patients with end stage ankle osteoarthritis (TARVA): statistical analysis plan. Trials 2020;21:197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3973-4 doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3973-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Zaidi R, Hargunani R, Calleja M, Foley J, Goldberg A. MRI classification of subtalar joint osteoarthritis using a novel scoring system. Open J Radiol 2020;10:69–78. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojrad.2020.102008 doi: 10.4236/ojrad.2020.102008. [DOI]
  28. Thornton J, Sabah S, Segaren N, Cullen N, Singh D, Goldberg A. Validated method for measuring functional range of motion in patients with ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 2016;37:868–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716645391 doi: 10.1177/1071100716645391. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Knupp M, Ledermann H, Magerkurth O, Hinterman B. The surgical tibiotalar angle: a radiologic study. Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:713–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502600909 doi: 10.1177/107110070502600909. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 4.0. May 2009. URL: https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf (accessed 27 March 2022).
  31. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res 2006;15:1211–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0061-5 doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-0061-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness of the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94:215–21. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27634 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27634. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Morley D, Dawson J. User Manual for the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ). 2014. URL: https://innovation.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MOXFQ_User_Manual_Contents-Page-1.pdf (accessed 15 November 2020).
  34. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:968–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502601113 doi: 10.1177/107110070502601113. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. EuroQol. EQ-5D-5L: About. 2017. URL: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/ (accessed 19 March 2021).
  36. van Reenen M, Janssen B. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. Rotterdam: EuroQol Research Foundation; 2015. URL: https://apersu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EQ-5D-5L_User-Guide.pdf (accessed 05 March 2021).
  37. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. Part II: recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 2016;87(Suppl. 1):9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816 doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, et al. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:357–67. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080 doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Doherty M, Jenkinson C, Muir KR. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009;7:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-7-12 doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-7-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H. Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Kosinski M, Keller SD, Hatoum HT, Kong SX, Ware JE. The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care 1999;37(Suppl. 5):MS10–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199905001-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199905001-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Le QA. Probabilistic mapping of the health status measure SF-12 onto the health utility measure EQ-5D using the US-population-based scoring models. Qual Life Res 2014;23:459–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0517-3 doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0517-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C, Oxford and Birmingham Foot and Ankle Clinical Research Group. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester–Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15:918–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. Minimally important change was estimated for the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire after foot/ankle surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:697–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, Edlin RP, Foguet P, Prakash U, Griffin DR, Young Adult Hip Arthroplasty Team. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012;344:e2147. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2147 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Cook JA, Bruckner T, MacLennan GS, Seiler CM. Clustering in surgical trials – database of intracluster correlations. Trials 2012;13:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-2 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. NHS Improvement. Findings from the 2014/15 Patient-Level Cost Collection. 2016. URL: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20171102112729/https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/findings-201415-patient-level-cost-collection/ (accessed 25 February 2021).
  51. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2019. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2019.
  52. NHS Improvement. NHS Reference Costs 2017/18. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/#rc1718 (accessed 11 November 2020).
  53. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2013. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2013.
  54. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2018.
  55. Office for National Statistics. EARN08: Distribution of Gross Hourly Earnings of Employees. 2022. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/distributionofgrosshourlyearningsofemployeesearn08 (accessed 5 March 2022).
  56. Campbell S. Replacing staff costs British businesses £4bn each year. The Telegraph, 24 February 2014.
  57. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/ (accessed 26 January 2021).
  58. Hunter RM, Baio G, Butt T, Morris S, Round J, Freemantle N. An educational review of the statistical issues in analysing utility data for cost-utility analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2015;33:355–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  60. Courville XF, Hecht PJ, Tosteson AN. Is total ankle arthroplasty a cost-effective alternative to ankle fusion? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:1721–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1848-4 doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1848-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  61. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables – Life Expectancy in the UK: 2017 to 2019. 2020. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2017to2019 (accessed 5 March 2021).
  62. SooHoo NF, Kominski G. Cost-effectiveness analysis of total ankle arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:2446–55. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200411000-00014 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200411000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Public Health England. Life Expectancy Calculator 2021. URL: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/documents/PHE%20Life%20Expectancy%20Calculator.xlsm (accessed 20 March 2021).
  64. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781 (accessed 20 March 2021). [PubMed]
  65. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(14). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19140 doi: 10.3310/hta19140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Norvell DC, Ledoux WR, Shofer JB, Hansen ST, Davitt J, Anderson JG, et al. Effectiveness and safety of ankle arthrodesis versus arthroplasty: a prospective multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:1485–94. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01257 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Jameson SS, Augustine A, James P, Serrano-Pedraza I, Oliver K, Townshend D, Reed MR. Venous thromboembolic events following foot and ankle surgery in the English National Health Service. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93–B:490–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B4.25731 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B4.25731. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Zaidi R, MacGregor A, Cro S, Goldberg A. Pulmonary embolism and mortality following total ankle replacement: a data linkage study using the NJR data set. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011947. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011947 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Glazebrook MA, Arsenault K, Dunbar M. Evidence-based classification of complications in total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30:945–9. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI.2009.0945 doi: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0945. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Gadd RJ, Barwick TW, Paling E, Davies MB, Blundell CM. Assessment of a three-grade classification of complications in total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int 2014;35:434–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714524549 doi: 10.1177/1071100714524549. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Henricson A, Jehpsson L, Carlsson Å, Rosengren BE. Re-arthrodesis after primary ankle fusion: 134/1,716 cases from the Swedish Ankle Registry. Acta Orthop 2018;89:560–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1488208 doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1488208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  72. Li Y, He J, Hu Y. Comparison of the efficiency and safety of total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of osteoarthritis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Surg 2020;12:372–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12635 doi: 10.1111/os.12635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. Griffin D, Parsons N, Shaw E, Kulikov Y, Hutchinson C, Thorogood M, Lamb SE, UK Heel Fracture Trial Investigators. Operative versus non-operative treatment for closed, displaced, intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2014;349:g4483. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4483 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g4483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Joseph MN, Achten J, Parsons NR, Costa ML, PAT Trial Collaborators. The PAT randomized clinical trial. Bone Joint J 2020;102–B:310–18. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0723.R1 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0723.R1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Carr A, Cooper C, Campbell MK, Rees J, Moser J, Beard DJ, et al. Effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (UKUFF): a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2017;99–B:107–15. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0424.R1 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0424.R1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Fordham R, Skinner J, Wang X, Nolan J, Exeter Primary Outcome Study Group. The economic benefit of hip replacement: a 5-year follow-up of costs and outcomes in the Exeter Primary Outcomes Study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000752. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000752 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, Howie CR. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. Bone Joint J 2013;95–B:115–21. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29835 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29835. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Pulikottil-Jacob R, Connock M, Kandala N-B, Mistry H, Grove A, Freeman K, et al. Cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Bone Joint J 2015;97–B:449–57. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B4.34242 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B4.34242. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Vale LD, Harrild K, Fraser C, Gurung T, et al. Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial: the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review. PLOS Med 2014;11:e1001645. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001645 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  80. Kraemer HC, Mintz J, Noda A, Tinklenberg J, Yesavage JA. Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63:484–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484 doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1977.
  82. Marinozzi A, Martinelli N, Panasci M, Cancilleri F, Franceschetti E, Vincenzi B, et al. Italian translation of the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity. Qual Life Res 2009;18:923–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9508-9 doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9508-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. The MOXFQ patient-reported questionnaire: assessment of data quality, reliability and validity in relation to foot and ankle surgery. Foot 2011;21:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2011.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2011.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Morley D, Jenkinson C, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Dawson J. The Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) – development and validation of a summary index score. Bone Joint Res 2013;2:66–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.24.2000147 doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.24.2000147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Drummond MF, Schulpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  86. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2010. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2010.
  87. Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC). Guidance: Advisory Fuel Rates. URL: www.gov.uk/guidance/advisory-fuel-rates (accessed 5 March 2021).

RESOURCES