Lessons from revision total ankle replacement: tibias fail earlier, and taluses fail later (and fail again)

Introduction/Purpose:With the last decade’s surge in total ankle replacement (TAR), there is an anticipated commensurate increase in the number of revisions that orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons will encounter. The salvage and implant options to deal with a failed primary TAR are expanding. However, the literature on survivorship and outcomes after revision TAR in the modern era is relatively limited. What’s more, little is known about the risk factors for further revision or failure of revision TAR. This study aimed to describe the timing to and survivorship after revision TAR. We hypothesized that tibial-sided failures would occur earlier after the index surgery, and secondary revisions after failure of revision TAR would occur more due to talar-sided failures than tibial-sided failures.Methods:This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of TAR patients (2012-2022) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Revision TARs (defined as exchange of tibial and/or talar components) with any implant (Cadence, Inbone, Invision, Infinity, Salto, STAR, Vantage, Zimmer; or custom total talus replacement [TTR]) were included. Five surgeons contributed patients.Demographics, primary and revision surgical data, and postoperative complications were recorded. Etiology of failure necessitating revision (tibial failure, talus failure, combined failure) and ultimate outcomes after revision (revision TAR survived, additional revisions, conversion to fusion, below-knee-amputation [BKA]) were recorded. Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and conversions to fusion were excluded. There were 59 ankles that underwent revision for any cause. Excluding 9 2-stage revisions for PJI and 3 conversions to ankle or tibiotalocalcaneal fusion, there were 47 ankles that underwent revision TAR that were included for analysis. Chi-square and ANOVA tests were used to compare risk factors and timing for failure.Results:There were 47 revision TARs, with mean age 60.6 (range: 31-77) years, mean BMI 29.5 kg/m2, 19 (40.4%) females, and mean 3.5 years follow-up. Revisions for tibial failure (n=22) occurred significantly earlier (1.3 ± 0.5 years) than those for talus failure (n=19, 2.3 ± 1.7 years) or combined tibial/talus failure (n=6, 2.9 ± 3.3 years) (P=0.048). Revisions for tibial-only failure had significantly better survivorship (95.5%) than revisions for talus or combined tibia/talus failures: 26% of talus failures and 33% of combined tibia/talus failures underwent at least one more revision (P=0.033). Of the 7 failures after revision talus, 2 ultimately underwent BKA, 2 were converted to TTR, 2 were revised to modular stemmed talus implants, and 1 was treated with explant and cement spacer for PJI.Conclusion:This study demonstrates that TAR tibial failures occur earlier than talus failures or combined tibial/talus failures. When patients with isolated tibial failure undergo revision of both tibial and talar components, they usually do well with good survivorship post-revision. However, revisions for talar failures and combined tibial/talar failures occur later but are more devastating: nearly 1/3 go on to a second revision. This is important given the consequences of talar implant subsidence, bone necrosis, loss of bone stock, and limited salvage options. As TAR utilization expands, it is imperative to develop implants and surgical strategies to maximize success for revision surgery.Flowchart of failures after revision TAR.PJI = periprosthetic joint infection. TTC = tibiotalocalcaneal. BKA = below-knee amputation. Tibial implant geometry included: Low-pro = lowprofile tibial implant. Stem = stemmed tibial implant. Keel = keeled tibial implant. Talus implant geometry included: chamfer/round and flat-cuttalus.

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Total ankle replacement (TAR) surgery has steadily increased in recent decades. The aim of the current study was to investigate the evolving burden of revision surgery and risk factors and timing of revision or implant removal. We hypothesized that there has been an increase in revision TAR and explant surgeries in the past decade and that younger age and higher comorbidity burden are risk factors for revision and explant. Methods: Using the 2010-2020 PearlDiver M151Ortho dataset, this retrospective cohort study identified primary TAR, TAR revision, and TAR explant patients. This is a large national database containing billing claims information on over 151 million patients in the United States across all payer types and sites of care. Patient factors investigated included age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI, a longitudinal measure of patient comorbidity burden generated using ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes). Annual incidence for primary and revision TAR, and explant were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine independent risk factors for revision TAR or explant relative to primary TAR. For explants, the eventual intervention by two years was analyzed. Ten-year timing and survival to revision or explant surgery following patient-matched unilateral TAR were characterized. Results: Over the study period, there were 10,531 primary, 1,218 revision, and 1,735 explant TARs (increasing by 310%, 398%, and 9.6%, respectively). Independent predictors of revision TAR included: younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.29 per decade decrease) and higher ECI (OR 1.23 per 2-point increase) (p < 0.0001 for both). Independent predictors of explant surgery included: younger age (OR 1.80 per decade decrease, p< 0.0001), female sex (OR 1.17, p=0.0011), and higher ECI (OR 1.35 per 2-point increase, p< 0.0001). Explanted patients went on to arthrodesis (37.7%), amputation (26.1%), revision TAR (14.7%), or no identified procedure/other procedures (21.5%) within the subsequent two years. The 10-year implant survival rate following primary TAR was 91.8%. 73% and 83% of revisions and explants occurred in the first three years following index TAR, respectively. Conclusion: The burden of TAR revision has grown substantially over the past decade. Younger age, female sex, and higher patient comorbidity burden were associated with increased risk of revision or explant surgery. If explant is pursued, most went on to arthrodesis or amputation. These results suggest that care should be taken in patient selection for TAR to minimize the occurrence of revision and explant surgery. Treatment algorithms should be modified to optimize outcomes among patients who undergo explant or revision surgery.

In cases with total ankle replacement (TAR) failure, a decision between revision TAR and salvage arthrodesis (SA) must be made. In a previous study, we analyzed revision TAR and found low functional outcome and satisfaction. The aims of the current study were to analyze SA concerning failure rate and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs). Until September 2014, a total of 1110 primary TARs were recorded in the Swedish Ankle Registry. Of the 188 failures, 118 were revised with SA (and 70 with revision TAR). Patient- and implant-specific data for SA cases were analyzed as well as arthrodesis techniques. Failure of SA was defined as repeat arthrodesis or amputation. Generic and region-specific PROMs of 68 patients alive with a solid unilateral SA performed more than 1 year before were analyzed. The first-attempt solid arthrodesis rate of SA was 90%. Overall, 25 of 53 (47%) patients were very satisfied or satisfied. Mean Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) was 22 (95% confidence interval 20-24), Euro Qol-5 Dimensions 0.57 (0.49-0.65), Euro Qol-Visual Analogue Scale 59 (53-64), Short Form-36 physical 34 (31-37) and mental 50 (46-54). The scores and satisfaction were similar to those after revision TAR but the reoperation rate was significantly lower in SA (P < .05). Salvage arthrodesis after failed TAR had a solid arthrodesis rate of 90% at first attempt, but similar to revision TAR, less than 50% of the patients were satisfied and the functional scores were low. Until studies show true benefit of revision TAR over SA, we favor SA for failed TAR. Level IV, retrospective case series.

Research Type: Level 3 - Retrospective cohort study, Case-control study, Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies Introduction/Purpose: Total ankle replacement (TAR) has become commonplace for treating end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. While outcomes are well-described for younger- and middle-aged patients, the short-term outcomes in older patients have not been thoroughly explored, particularly in cases of revision. With the median age of TAR patients being 63 years, geriatric patients (age &gt; 65) make up a considerable portion of TAR operations. Further, revision TAR in this age group continues to increase, as more cases are performed on younger- and middle-aged patients. Therefore, in this database study, primary and revision TAR cases in elderly patients were examined to determine the possible risk of adverse events in each group. Methods: In this National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database study, we included all primary and TAR cases in elderly patients (age &gt; 65 years) from 2010 to 2023. Cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes: the primary group included the codes 27702 and 27703, while the revision TAR group included 27704, 27705, 27707, and 27709. After identifying the relevant cases, groups were matched 1:1 by nearest neighbor propensity score to balance baseline characteristics (age, BMI, sex, race, ASA class, and key comorbidities). For statistical analysis, continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon test, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test. Finally, the risk of short-term complications for both groups was assessed via odds ratio calculations. Results: After matching, a total of 227 patients were in each group. Revision cases had significantly longer lengths of hospital stay (1.84 vs. 3.66 days, p &lt; 0.001), higher rates of adverse events (3.5% vs. 15%, p &lt; 0.001), and higher usage of intraoperative blood transfusion (0% vs. 7.5%, p &lt; 0.001). Further, longer operating times posed a greater risk of adverse events in both groups (p &lt; 0.5). Finally, type 1 diabetes was associated with a 3.66 times greater likelihood of adverse events in the revision group (p &lt; 0.01) but was not a significant risk factor in primary TAR. For a summary of significant results, please see Table 1. Conclusion: In conclusion, revision TAR in elderly patients was associated with significantly higher rates of short-term adverse events compared to primary TAR. Diabetes emerged as a key risk factor in revision cases, warranting careful consideration in older patient populations with this comorbid condition. While longer operative time was a significant risk factor in both groups, this may reflect case complexity, with more challenging procedures inherently carrying higher complication risks. Despite these concerns, revision TAR remains a viable option in geriatric patients when performed with careful patient selection and perioperative management. Table 1 Comparison of primary and revision total ankle replacement in elderly in terms of demographics, operative information, complications, and risk factors for adverse events

As the frequency in which foot and ankle surgeons are performing primary total ankle replacement (TAR) continues to build, revision TAR will likely become more commonplace, creating a need for an established benchmark by which to evaluate the safety of revision TAR as determined by the incidence of complications. In this chapter, we will review the surgeon learning curve and how it may apply to revision TAR with respect to the incidence of complications. Furthermore, we will investigate the incidence of complications encountered during the surgeon learning curve period for primary TAR as reported in the world literature and will use this as a comparison by which to judge the safety of revision TAR when performed by a surgeon in their learning curve. According to data compiled by the authors, the incidence of complications associated with primary implantation of the Agility™ Total Ankle Replacement System during the surgeon learning curve is roughly 60 %. Based on both a case series of our patient data and a review of the literature, revision of these specific TAR systems during the surgeon learning period can be accomplished safely and with a lower incidence of complications, when performed meticulously by a qualified foot and ankle surgeon. Lastly, a validated classification system for complications encountered during TAR regardless of prosthetic design is needed to allow for more standardized reporting of complications, irrespective of whether they are primary or revision TAR.

Background and purpose — In failed total ankle replacements (TARs), fusion is often the procedure of preference; the outcome after exchanging prosthetic components is debated. We analyzed prosthetic survival, self-reported function, and patient satisfaction after component exchange.Patients and methods — We identified patients in the Swedish Ankle Registry who underwent exchange of a tibial and/or talar component between January 1, 1993 and July 1, 2013 and estimated prosthetic survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis. We evaluated the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) SEFAS, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, SF-36, and patient satisfaction by direct questions.Results — 69 patients underwent revision TAR median 22 (0–110) months after the primary procedure. 24 of these failed again after median 26 (1–110) months. Survival analysis of revision TAR showed a 5-year survival rate of 76% and a 10-year survival of 55%. 29 patients with first revision TAR in situ answered the PROMs at mean 8 (1–17) years after revision and had the following mean scores: SEFAS 22, SF-36 physical 37 and mental 49, EQ-5D index 0.6, and EQ-VAS 64. 15 of the patients were satisfied, 5 were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 9 were dissatisfied.Interpretation — Revision TAR had a 10-year survival of 55%, which is lower than the 10-year survival of 74% for primary TAR reported from the same registry. Only half of the patients were satisfied. Future studies should show which, if any, patients benefit from revision TAR and which patients should rather be fused directly.

The literature on survivorship and outcomes after revision total ankle replacement (TAR) in the modern era is limited. This study aimed to describe the timing to revision and survivorship after revision TAR. We hypothesized that tibial-sided failures would occur earlier after the primary TAR, and secondary revisions after failure of revision TAR would occur more due to talar-sided failures than tibial-sided failures. This is a single-institution retrospective study of TAR patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. Revision TARs (defined as exchange of tibial and/or talar components) for aseptic causes with any implant were included. Etiology of failure necessitating revision and ultimate outcomes after revision (survival of TAR revision, additional revision, conversion to fusion, and below-knee amputation [BKA]) were recorded. There were 46 revision TARs, with mean age of 60.6 (range: 31-77) years and mean 3.5 years' follow-up postrevision. Revisions for tibial failure occurred significantly earlier (n = 22, 1.3 ± 0.5 years after index procedure) than those for talar failure (n = 19, 2.3 ± 1.7 years after index procedure) or combined tibial-talar failure (n = 5, 3.4 ± 3.4 years after index procedure) (P = .015). Revisions for tibial-only failure had better survival (95.5%) than revisions for talar or combined tibial-talar failures: 26% of talar failures and 20% of combined tibial-talar failures underwent ≥1 revisions. Of the 6 additional revisions after failure of the talar component, 1 ultimately underwent BKA, 2 were converted to total talus replacement, 2 were revised to modular augmented talar components, and 1 was treated with explant and cement spacer for PJI after the revision. TAR tibial failures occurred earlier than talar failures or combined tibial-talar failures. Revisions for talar failures and combined tibial-talar failures were more likely to require additional revision or ultimately fail revision treatment. This is important given the consequences of talar implant subsidence, bone necrosis, loss of bone stock, and limited salvage options.

Category: Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Talar component subsidence is the most common indication for revision total ankle replacement. The management of talar bone loss and alteration in the ankle joint center of rotation is challenging following component subsidence. Unfortunately, ankle arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for failed ankle arthroplasty has been associated with high rates of nonunion and collapse. Equally unfortunate, there is paucity in the literature on revision total ankle arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report the early outcomes of revision total ankle replacement using a modular prosthesis and metal/cement augmentation to reconstitute talar height following catastrophic failure of the index total ankle arthroplasty. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on sixteen patients who underwent revision total ankle replacement for failed arthroplasty associated with talar component subsidence and subsequent talar bone loss. Demographic data, postoperative complications, index implant, and concomitant procedures were recorded. Radiographic measurements were performed at three time-points (preoperative, immediately postoperative, and most recent follow-up) to evaluate alignment of the prosthesis, talar height restoration, and range of motion. Results: Patient follow-up ranged from 9.3 –19.1 months, with a mean follow-up period of 12.2 months. The maximum preoperative and postoperative talar coronal misalignment was 16.2° and 3.5°, respectively. The mean preoperative and immediate postoperative talar height was 28.7 mm and 33.3 mm, respectively. There was a significant improvement in talar height of 4.6 mm after revision total ankle replacement (P&lt;0.001). There was no difference in talar height between the immediate postoperative visit and latest follow-up visit (33.2 mm). The mean preoperative and postoperative radiographic arc of motion was 19.5° and 24.0°, respectively. Ten patients (62.5%) did not sustain complications post surgical. Three patients developed a superficial wound complication that healed without additional surgery. One patient required a transmetatarsal amputation. Other complications included neuritis and DVT. Conclusion: Revision ankle replacement using a modular prosthesis with metal/cement augmentation allows restoration of talar height. Though we recognize this data constitutes a very early follow up, this cohort has utilized the revision ankle implant with significant repetitive load after which older generation implants underwent secondary subsidence due to poor talar bone stock. Early outcomes demonstrate a predictable method to salvage catastrophic prosthesis failure associated with severe talar subsidence and deformity. The risk of postoperative complications, although moderate, is an acceptable alternative to lower limb amputation/arthrodesis. Further follow up is warranted to determine functional outcomes and longevity of revision implant systems.

Category:AnkleIntroduction/Purpose:Talar component subsidence is the most common indication for revision total ankle replacement. The management of talar bone loss and alteration in the ankle joint center of rotation is challenging following component subsidence. Unfortunately, ankle arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for failed ankle arthroplasty has been associated with high rates of nonunion and collapse. Equally unfortunate, there is paucity in the literature on revision total ankle arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report the early outcomes of revision total ankle replacement using a modular prosthesis and metal/cement augmentation to reconstitute talar height following catastrophic failure of the index total ankle arthroplasty.Methods:Retrospective review was performed on sixteen patients who underwent revision total ankle replacement for failed arthroplasty associated with talar component subsidence and subsequent talar bone loss. All patients underwent revision arthroplasty using a revision modular ankle prosthesis and had a minimum of one-year follow-up. Demographic data, postoperative complications, original prosthesis, and concomitant procedures were recorded. Radiographic measurements were performed at three time-points (preoperative, immediately after surgery, and at most recent follow-up) to evaluate alignment of the prosthesis, talar height, and ankle range of motion. Implant survivorship was determined. Failure was defined as >2 mm of talar subsidence, conversion to ankle arthrodesis or below the knee amputation, and/or revision of the prosthesis. Ankle Osteoarthritis Score (AOS), Foot Function Index (FFI), and visual analog score (VAS) were collected at the most recent postoperative visit.Results:Patient follow-up ranged from 12.1 –20.6 months, with a mean follow-up of 15.0 months. The mean preoperative and immediate postoperative talar height was 28.7 mm and 33.4 mm, respectively. There was a significant improvement in talar height of 4.7 mm after revision total ankle replacement (P<0.001). Talar height was maintained at most recent follow-up. The mean preoperative and postoperative radiographic arc of motion was 19.5° and 24.0°, respectively. Two patients, with a mean BMI of 43.5, developed >2 mm of talar subsidence (one patient required revision surgery). The mean postoperative AOS and FFI was 25.0 and 28.8, respectively. The majority of patients (84%) were satisfied with their outcome, and all patients would choose to undergo the same procedure again (vs. arthrodesis or amputation).Conclusion:Revision ankle replacement using a modular prosthesis with metal/cement augmentation allows restoration of talar height. Though we recognize this data constitutes a very early follow up, this cohort has utilized the revision ankle implant with significant repetitive load after which older generation implants underwent secondary subsidence due to poor talar bone stock. Early outcomes demonstrate a predictable method to salvage catastrophic prosthesis failure associated with severe talar subsidence and deformity. The risk of postoperative complications, although moderate, is an acceptable alternative to lower limb amputation/arthrodesis. Further follow-up is warranted to determine functional outcomes and longevity of revision implant systems.

Category:Ankle, Ankle ArthritisIntroduction/Purpose:Total ankle replacement as a valid treatment for end stage ankle arthritis, is gaining popularity and every year there is an increasing number of procedures. With revision rates as high as 21% at 5 years and 43% at 10 years there is a need for understanding and reporting the outcome of revision ankle replacement. Our aim was to study the patient reported outcomes following revision TAR with a minimum of 2 year follow up.Methods:All patients that underwent a revision total ankle replacement between 2012 and 2016 were included in the study. All patients received a post-operative questionnaire comprising of MOX-FQ score, EQ-5D (UK) and Foot and Ankle outcomes scores (FAOS) and patients satisfaction questionnaire with a minimum of 2 years follow up.Results:32 patients had a revision total ankle replacement between 2012 and 2016. 2 patients were deceased therefore 30 patients were included in the study. 5 patients declined participation for completing questionnaires. We received 21 (66%) completed questionnaires. The mean MOX-FQ average domain score for pain was 58.8, walking/standing 65.8 and social function was 48.2. The mean FAOS scores were 50.7 for pain, 50.6 for symptoms, 54.9 for ADL and 28.2 for quality of life. The mean overall health score today for EQ-5D was 67.8/100. 45% of patients were satisfied with the pain relief and return to sports and recreation obtained following the operation, 48% were satisfied with the improved in daily activities. 52% were overall satisfied with the results from surgery.Conclusion:Revision total ankle replacement gives overall satisfactory results demonstrated from patients reported outcomes at a minimum of 2 years following surgery.

Intraoperative Radiation Exposure During Revision Total Ankle Replacement

Research Type: Level 3 - Retrospective cohort study, Case-control study, Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies Introduction/Purpose: Total ankle replacement (TAR) has evolved significantly in the past two decades, yet comprehensive long-term projections of procedural volume and economic impact remain absent from the literature. While extensive projection studies exist for hip, knee, and elbow arthroplasty, the future landscape of TAR utilization remains undefined. Medicare data provides a unique opportunity to model future trends in this rapidly evolving procedure. This study analyzes comprehensive Medicare data (2000-2022) to project TAR and revision TAR (rTAR) volumes through 2040, providing critical insights for workforce planning, healthcare resource allocation, and policy development during a period when foot and ankle specialists may face increasing procedural demand. Methods: We analyzed the complete Medicare Part-B National Summary data (2000-2022), determining procedure volumes for primary TAR and rTAR using CPT codes. Volumes were adjusted to account for the rapidly expanding Medicare Advantage population as well, creating adjusted volumes that reflect total Medicare beneficiary utilization. All payments were standardized to 2022 CPI values to enable accurate financial projections. Two complementary statistical approaches were employed to ensure projection reliability: linear regression with natural splines and generalized additive models with thin plate spline smoothers. Both methods generated robust projections with 95% forecast intervals (FI) through 2040. The revision burden was calculated as the rTAR:TAR ratio for each projected year. Results: TAR volume increased from 510 procedures in 2000 to 4,893 in 2022 (859% growth). rTAR increased from 52 to 563 procedures (983% growth) over the same period. The projected annual growth rates for primary TAR and rTAR are 3.76% (95% CI: 3.21%-4.32%) and 5.41% (95% CI: 4.74%-6.09%), respectively. By 2040, primary TAR volume is projected to increase 124% from 9,812 procedures in 2023 to 21,971 (95% FI: 19,593-24,350), with an average annual increase of 715 procedures. Revision TAR volume is projected to grow 146% from 1,149 cases in 2023 to 2,827 (95% FI: 2,649-3,005). Annual Medicare spending on primary TARs is projected to reach $3.0 million by 2040, while rTAR expenditure will approach $751,108. The revision burden is projected to increase from 11.7% to 12.9%. Conclusion: Our models forecast substantial growth in both primary and revision TAR procedures through 2040. Unlike hip and knee arthroplasty approaching market saturation, TAR represents an emerging procedure with significant growth potential. These findings have critical implications for: (1) Workforce development—specialized training must expand by approximately 35%; (2) Healthcare systems—facilities must prepare for doubling procedure volumes; (3) Implant development—manufacturers should anticipate increased demand for revision systems; and (4) Medicare policy—reimbursement structures require recalibration to maintain access during this growth phase in ankle replacement procedures. Projected TAR and rTAR Volumes and Medicare Expenditures (2023-2040)

Advances in the design of the components for total ankle replacement have led to a resurgence of interest in this procedure. Between January 1999 and December 2004, 16 patients with a failed total ankle replacement were referred to our unit. In the presence of infection, a two-stage salvage procedure was planned. The first involved the removal of the components and the insertion of a cement spacer. Definitive treatment options included hindfoot fusion with a circular frame or amputation. When there was no infection, a one-stage salvage procedure was planned. Options included hindfoot fusion with an intramedullary nail or revision total ankle replacement. When there was suspicion of infection, a percutaneous biopsy was performed. The patients were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Of the 16 patients, 14 had aseptic loosening, five of whom underwent a revision total ankle replacement and nine a hindfoot fusion. Of the two with infection, one underwent fusion and the other a below-knee amputation. There were no cases of wound breakdown, nonunion or malunion. Management of the failed total ankle replacement should be performed by experienced surgeons and ideally in units where multidisciplinary support is available. Currently, a hindfoot fusion appears to be preferable to a revision total ankle replacement.

Sagittal Ankle and Midfoot Range of Motion Before and After Revision Total Ankle Replacement: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis

Category: Ankle Arthritis; Ankle Introduction/Purpose: As the number of total ankle replacements (TAR) performed annually increases, there is an increased demand for implants that can be used in revision scenarios when primary TARs fail. As indications for TAR expand, there is increased reliance on modular systems to treat challenging conditions including bone loss, avascular necrosis, and instability. The INVISION Total Ankle Arthroplasty System (Wright Medical Technology/Stryker, Memphis, TN), released in 2018, includes modular augmented tibial trays and talar plates of varied heights to compensate for bone loss. There is limited data on early survivorship and clinical outcomes of the INVISION. This novel study aims to determine the early implant survivorship, complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROMIS), and radiographic outcomes of the INVISION implant used in both the primary and revision arthroplasty setting. Methods: This study is a single-institution retrospective review of adult patients who underwent primary or revision TAR with the INVISION implant with minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographics, reason for use of INVISION, surgical data, complications, pre- operative and 2 year post-operative radiographic data, and pre-operative and 2-year post-operative patient-reported outcome scores were collected. The primary outcome was survivorship (retention of both tibial/talar components at final follow-up). Secondary outcomes were reoperation (return to OR with retention of both tibial and talar components), radiographic complications (peri-implant lucency, cysts, or subsidence), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMIS pre-operative and 2-year post-operative). PROMIS scores were collected across the following domains: physical function, pain interference, pain intensity, global mental health, and depression score. Results: Twenty-six patients (primary=7; revision=19) underwent INVISION TAR (mean age 62 years, weight 81.kg, BMI 29.3 kg/m2, 15/26 male) with mean follow-up 3.5 years. Reason for INVISION primary TAR included tibial (n=1) or talar (n=5) bone loss, and take-down fusion (n=1); INVISION revision TAR was used for tibial (n=6) or talar (n=7) component subsidence, recurrent tibiotalar malalignment (valgus=1, varus=3), and post-infection bone loss (n=2). Two-year implant survivorship was 100%. There were 2 reoperations (7.7%): 1 gutter debridement and 1 irrigation, debridement and polyethylene exchange for infection. Two-year follow-up PROMIS domains improved significantly (p &lt; 0.05) from pre-operative in both the primary (pain interference, pain intensity) and revision cohorts (pain interference, pain intensity, global physical function). Two-year radiographic follow-up yielded 1 tibial peri-implant lucency and 1 tibial cyst. Conclusion: In this single-institution series, there was excellent short-term survivorship of the INVISION TAR implant with no failures in primary or revision cases. There were significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes scores. There were low rates of peri-implant lucencies and cysts. The results of this study support the use of the INVISION implant in both the complex primary and revision TAR setting. INVISION may offer an alternate surgical solution to fusion, custom printed cage implants, and total talus replacement in this complex patient population. Further research and follow-up data are warranted to report the longer-term outcomes and survivorship of this implant.