Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery - 2026-03-09 - Journal Article
Clinical comparison of internal fixation constructs in midfoot charcot arthropathy.
Ingall EM, Rieker M, Padley J, Graham D, Hietpas K, Jones CP, Ellington JK, Ford S, Irwin TA
Topics
Key Takeaway
IM nail constructs achieved 91.7% union vs 50.0% with traditional beaming (p=0.004) and lower hardware failure (12.5% vs 66.7%, p<0.001) in midfoot Charcot reconstruction.
Summary Depth
Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.
Summary
This single-center retrospective study compared radiographic union, hardware failure, and reoperation rates between traditional beaming and intramedullary compression nail constructs in 42 feet undergoing midfoot Charcot reconstruction with minimum 9-month follow-up. IM nail constructs demonstrated significantly higher union rates (91.7% vs 50.0%, p=0.004) and lower hardware failure rates (12.5% vs 66.7%, p<0.001), with these advantages persisting on multivariable regression controlling for concomitant subtalar arthrodesis. Overall secondary surgery was required in 45.2% of feet with no statistically significant difference between groups (p=0.07).
Key Limitation
The small sample size (n=42) and single-center retrospective design introduce selection bias in construct choice, as surgeon preference rather than randomization determined implant allocation.
Original Abstract
BACKGROUND
Charcot neuroarthropathy affects 0.4-13% of diabetic patients and can be limb threatening, often requiring surgical stabilization. Traditionally, intramedullary fixation ("beaming") has been utilized, but more recently intramedullary compression nails ("IM nails") have been introduced.
PURPOSE
This study compared radiographic union, hardware failure, and major reoperations between IM nails and traditional beaming for Charcot midfoot reconstruction.
STUDY DESIGN
Patient outcomes following Charcot midfoot reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed at a single center from 2016 to 2021.
METHODS
We identified patients with midfoot Charcot treated with extended intramedullary fixation and ≥9 months follow-up. Patients with ulceration, ankle Charcot, or external fixation were excluded. Demographics, construct type, and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. Union was assessed by two fellowship-trained surgeons. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for construct type and subtalar arthrodesis.
RESULTS
Forty-two feet (mean age 56.6 ± 9.2 years) were included: 18 beaming and 24 IM nail constructs. Mean follow-up was 2.2 ± 1.2 years (clinical) and 12.8 ± 7.1 months (radiographic). Demographics were similar between groups. Secondary surgery was required in 19 feet (45.2%) with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.07). IM nail constructs had significantly higher union rates (91.7% vs 50.0%, p = 0.004) and lower hardware failure rates (12.5% vs 66.7%, p < 0.001). Regression analysis showed this association was independent of concomitant subtalar arthrodesis status.
CONCLUSIONS
Intramedullary compression nails demonstrated superior union and hardware failure rates than traditional beaming constructs in midfoot Charcot reconstruction, benefits that persisted independent of concomitant subtalar arthrodesis. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this is primarily attributable to implant design or additive effects of hindfoot stabilization.