Ankle Arthroscopy the Present and the Future
Volume 6 | Issue 1 | Jan-April 2018 | Page 8-13 | Krishnaprasad P R, Acharaya K
Authors: Krishnaprasad P.R , Acharaya K .
 Department of Orthopaedic surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University,
Address of Correspondence
Department of Orthopaedics Kasturba Medical College,Manipal
Ankle arthroscopy evolved from 1939 Tagaki of tokyo, but it was after 1980’s there was a surge in understanding of Ankle arthroscopy with extensions of indications commenced. Surgical instruments and techniques evolved over period and still evolving. The 2.7mm and 1.9 mm arthroscope with 30 degrees obliquity become standard. supine, lateral and prone positions are used with distraction of the joint achieved by invasive or non-invasive methods depending on the indications. Arthroscopy pumps are now mandatory in arthroscopy assisted fusions in order to maintain the hemostasis and better visualization. The general anesthesia and regional anesthesia in combination helps the patient for better post-operative pain control and early rehabilitation. Off late understanding of arthroscopy of smaller joints like subtalar joints, endoscopy of Tarsal tunnel and plantar fascia for the release respectively as well tendoscopy of tendons like Achilles, posteriortibial, flexor halluces longus and peronei are gaining popularity which are aimed at minimizing the morbidity and enhancing the rehabilitation. Steep learning curve and experience in the technique by the surgeon are challenges for wider practice of this technique.
Keywords : Ankle distractors, Ankle arthroscopic portals, subtalar arthroscopy, tendoscopy, endoscopy around Ankle
1. O’Connor RL. Arthroscopy. Kalamazoo: Mich, Upjohn; 1977. p. 12-6.
2. Watanabe M. Selfoc-Arthroscope, Watanabe No. 24 Arthroscope, Monograph. Tokyo: Teishin Hospital; 1972.
3. Ferkel RD. Arthroscopic Surgery: The Foot and Ankle. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
4. Dowdy PA, Watson BV, Amendola A, Brown JD. Non-invasive ankle distraction: Relationship between force, magnitude of distraction, and nerve conduction abnormalities. Arthroscopy 1996;12:64-69.
5. Andrews JR, Previte WJ, Carson WG. Arthroscopy of the ankle: Technique and normal anatomy. Foot Ankle 1985;6(1):29-33.
6. Gepstein R, Conforty B, Weiss RE, Hallel T. Closed percutaneous drilling for osteochondritis dissecans of the talus. A report of two cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;213:197-200.
7. Ferkel RD. Arthroscopic Surgery: The Foot and Ankle. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
8. Chen YC. Clinical and cadaver studies on the ankle joint arthroscopy. J JpnOrthopAssoc1976;50:631-651.
9. Parisien JS. Arthroscopy of the posterior subtalar joint: A preliminary report. Foot Ankle 1986;6(5):219-224.
10. Parisien JS. Arthroscopy of the ankle: State of the art. ContempOrthop1982;5:21-27.
11. Watanabe M. Selfoc-Arthroscope, Watanabe No. 24 Arthroscope, Monograph. Tokyo: Teishin Hospital; 1972.
12. van Dijk CN, Scholten PE, Krips R. A 2-portal endoscopic approach for diagnosis and treatment of posterior ankle pathology. Arthroscopy 2000;16(8):871-876.
13. Ferkel RD, Guhl J. Complications in 612 ankle arthroscopies. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Washington, DC: WVOC; 1992.
14. Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Roger A. Manns Surgery of Foot and Ankle. 9th ed., Vol. 2. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2014.
|How to Cite this article: Krishna Prasad PR, Acharaya K. Ankle Arthroscopy the Present and the Future. J Kar Orth Assoc. Jan-April 2018; 6(1): 8-13.|
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!