Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (Asia Pacific)

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE S1 ( August, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Reconstruction of the ‘Foot at Risk’ during Acute Charcot Neuroarthropathy

Amit S Patel, Manjunathan Sivaprakasam, Ines LH Reichert, Raju Ahluwalia, Chris Manu, Venu Kavarthapu

Keywords : Ankle, Charcot neuroarthropathy, Diabetic foot, Reconstruction, Surgery

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10040-1304

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Charcot neuroarthropathy (CN) of the foot and ankle presents significant challenges to the foot and ankle surgeon. Established practice focuses on conservative management during the acute phase with offloading followed by deformity correction during the chronic phase. However, if the deformity progresses in spite of optimal offloading, ulceration, infection, and limb loss are possible. Our aim was to assess the outcomes of primary surgical management with early reconstruction, even in the acute phase, when the foot is at risk of major amputation. Methods: This was a retrospective review of all cases of Charcot foot reconstruction done within our unit between 2011 and 2019. Only patients presenting with acute CN foot that required surgical reconstruction due to failure of nonoperative measures have been included in this study. A detailed assessment was then made for this subsets of patients, who underwent reconstruction while still within the acute CN phase. We reported on their clinical outcomes of mobility, ulcer healing, bone union, and need for repeat surgery. Results: A total of 92 Charcot reconstructions were done between 2011 and 2019, and there were 26 patients (27 feet) who had reconstruction during their acute phase; 15 in Eichenholtz stage I and 12 in stage II with instability due to non-union resulting in progressive deformity. All had peripheral neuropathy, and the majority were due to diabetes (96%). A total of 14 of these were performed as single-stage procedures, whereas 13 were as two-stage reconstructions. These included isolated hindfoot reconstructions in eight, midfoot in four, and combined in 15 feet. The mean age at the time of operation was 55 years (range 31–78). Preoperative ulceration was evident in 15 feet. Mean follow-up was 45 months (range 12–98). One patient died before completing a minimum follow-up. There was 100% limb salvage. Final ambulation outcomes demonstrated full-weight-bearing in 25 patients (96%), mobilizing in bespoke footwear in 18 and in an ankle foot orthosis (AFO), Charcot restraint orthotic walker (CROW) or bivalve cast in seven. All preoperative ulcerations had healed within 12 months of follow-up. Full bone union was seen in 19/22 hindfoot reconstructions and 7/19 midfoot reconstructions. There were nine episodes of return to theater, of which five were within the first 12 months. There was one episode of new ulceration. Conclusion: Early surgical management following acute and unstable CN of the foot provides functional limb salvage. In particular, hindfoot reconstruction shows better rates of bony union compared to midfoot reconstruction. It should be considered in stage I presentations and stage II with instability, if the nonoperative measures fail and there is a risk of limb loss due to progression of deformity, ulceration and infection.


PDF Share
  1. Berli M, Vlachopoulos L, Leupi S, et al. Treatment of Charcot Neuroarthropathy and osteomyelitis of the same foot: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18(1):460. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1818-4
  2. Vas PRJ, Edmonds M, Kavarthapu V, et al. The diabetic foot attack: “'Tis Too Late to Retreat!”. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2018;17(1):7–13. DOI: 10.1177/1534734618755582
  3. Eichenholtz SN. Charcot joints. Springfield, Ill.,: C. C. Thomas; 1966. xiv, 227 p.
  4. Rosenbaum AJ, DiPreta JA. Classifications in brief: Eichenholtz classification of Charcot arthropathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473(3):1168–1171. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4059-y
  5. Chantelau EA, Grutzner G. Is the Eichenholtz classification still valid for the diabetic Charcot foot? Swiss Med Wkly 2014;144:w13948. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2014.13948
  6. Johnson-Lynn SE, McCaskie AW, Coll AP, et al. Neuroarthropathy in diabetes: pathogenesis of Charcot arthropathy. Bone Joint Res 2018;7(5):373–378. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0334.R1
  7. Simon SR, Tejwani SG, Wilson DL, et al. Arthrodesis as an early alternative to nonoperative management of Charcot arthropathy of the diabetic foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82-A(7):939–950. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200007000-00005
  8. Caravaggi C, Cimmino M, Caruso S, et al. Intramedullary compressive nail fixation for the treatment of severe Charcot deformity of the ankle and rear foot. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45(1):20–24. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2005.10.003
  9. Caravaggi CM, Sganzaroli AB, Galenda P, et al. Long-term follow-up of tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis in diabetic patients with early chronic Charcot osteoarthropathy. J Foot Ankle Surg 2012;51(4):408–411. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2012.04.007
  10. Vainieri E, Ahluwalia R, Slim H, et al. Outcomes after emergency admission with a diabetic foot attack indicate a high rate of healing and limb salvage but increased mortality: 18-month follow-up study. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2020;130(3):165–173. DOI: 10.1055/a-1322-4811
  11. Bateman AH, Bradford S, Hester TW, et al. Modern orthopedic inpatient care of the orthopedic patient with diabetic foot disease. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2015;14(4):384–394. DOI: 10.1177/1534734615596114
  12. Kavarthapu V, Budair B. Two-stage reconstruction of infected Charcot foot using internal fixation: a promising functional limb salvage technique. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-b(10):1611–1618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B10.BJJ-2021-0339.R2
  13. Folestad A, Ålund M, Asteberg S, et al. Role of Wnt/β-catenin and RANKL/OPG in bone healing of diabetic Charcot arthropathy patients. Acta Orthop 2015;86(4):415–425. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1033606
  14. Pakarinen TK, Laine HJ, Honkonen SE, et al. Charcot arthropathy of the diabetic foot. Current concepts and review of 36 cases. Scand J Surg 2002;91(2):195–201. DOI: 10.1177/145749690209100212
  15. Lamm BM, Gottlieb HD, Paley D. A two-stage percutaneous approach to charcot diabetic foot reconstruction. J Foot Ankle Surg 2010;49(6):517–522. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.07.014
  16. Mittlmeier T, Klaue K, Haar P, et al. Should one consider primary surgical reconstruction in Charcot arthropathy of the feet? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(4):1002–1011. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-0972-x
  17. Siebachmeyer M, Boddu K, Bilal A, et al. Outcome of one-stage correction of deformities of the ankle and hindfoot and fusion in Charcot neuroarthropathy using a retrograde intramedullary hindfoot arthrodesis nail. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-b(1):76–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B1.34542
  18. Vasukutty N, Jawalkar H, Anugraha A, et al. Correction of ankle and hind foot deformity in Charcot neuroarthropathy using a retrograde hind foot nail-The Kings’ Experience. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;24(5):406-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2017.04.014
  19. Ha J, Hester T, Foley R, et al. Charcot foot reconstruction outcomes: a systematic review. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020;11(3):357–368. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.03.025
  20. Kummen I, Phyo N, Kavarthapu V. Charcot foot reconstruction—how do hardware failure and non-union affect the clinical outcomes? Ann Jt 2020;5. DOI: 10.21037/aoj.2020.01.06
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.