Metal implant removal: benefits and drawbacks – a patient survey

BMC Surgery

Christian Probst²  Bertil Bouillon²  Tibor Tinschmann²  Marco M. Schneider²  Kai O. Hensel¹  Vera Schmitz-Greven²  Georg Reith² 

[1] Helios Medical Center Wuppertal, ZBAF, Center for Biomedical Education and Research, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany;Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany

关键词: Patient satisfaction;    Complication;    Hardware removal;    Metalwork removal;    Implant removal;    Metal removal;   

Others  :  1222714
DOI  :  10.1186/s12893-015-0081-6

 received in 2015-01-06, accepted in 2015-08-01,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Hardware removals are among the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. Current literature offers little data concerning postoperative patient satisfaction. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the patients’ point of view on implant removal.

Methods

We surveyed patients of a German level one trauma center, who underwent hardware removal in 2009 and 2010, with regard to their personal experiences on implant removal. Exclusively, data obtained out of the survey were analyzed.

Results

In 332 patients surveyed, most hardware removals were performed at the ankle joint (21 %) followed by the wrist (15 %). The most frequent indication was a doctor’s recommendation (68 %), followed by pain (31 %) and impaired function (31 %). Patient reported complication rate of implant removal was 10 %. Importantly, after implant removal because of pain or impaired function patients reported an improvement in function (72 %) as well as decreased pain (96 %). 96 % of all responding patients and 66 % of the patients who suffered from subsequent complications would opt for surgical implant removal again.

Conclusion

In summary, despite the challenging and frequently troublesome nature of surgical hardware removal our data contradicts the widely held view that implant removal is often without a positive effect on the patients. These findings may influence the surgeons’ attitude towards implant removal and their day-to-day routine in patient counseling.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Reith et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bostman O, Pihlajamaki H. Routine implant removal after fracture surgery: a potentially reducible consumer of hospital resources in trauma units. J Trauma. 1996; 41(5):846-9.
• [2]Ochs BG, Gonser CE, Baron HC, Stockle U, Badke A, Stuby FM. Refracture of long bones after implant removal. An avoidable complication? Unfallchirurg. 2012; 115(4):323-9.
• [3]Unno Veith F, Ladermann A, Hoffmeyer P. Is hardware removal a necessity? Rev Med Suisse. 2009; 5(201):977-80.
• [4]Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006; 14(2):113-20.
• [5]Muller-Farber J. Metal removal after osteosyntheses. Indications and risks. Der Orthopade. 2003; 32(11):1039-57.
• [6]Hanson B, van der Werken C, Stengel D. Surgeons’ beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9:73. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Brown RM, Wheelwright EF, Chalmers J. Removal of metal implants after fracture surgery--indications and complications. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1993; 38(2):96-100.
• [8]Sanderson PL, Ryan W, Turner PG. Complications of metalwork removal. Injury. 1992; 23(1):29-30.
• [9]Richards RH, Palmer JD, Clarke NM. Observations on removal of metal implants. Injury. 1992; 23(1):25-8.
• [10]Evers B, Habelt R, Gerngroß H. Indication, timing and complications of plate removal after forearm fractures: results of a metaanalyses including 635 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86-B(SUPP III):289.
• [11]Beaupre GS, Csongradi JJ. Refracture risk after plate removal in the forearm. J Orthop Trauma. 1996; 10(2):87-92.
• [12]Stuby FM, Gonser CE, Baron HC, Stockle U, Badke A, Ochs BG. Hardware removal after pelvic ring injury. Unfallchirurg. 2012; 115(4):330-8.
• [13]Pape HC, Zelle B, Lohse R, Stalp M, Hildebrand F, Krettek C et al.. Evaluation and outcome of patients after polytrauma--can patients be recruited for long-term follow-up? Injury. 2006; 37(12):1197-203.
• [14]Wortman M, Daggett A, Ball C. Operative hysteroscopy in an office-based surgical setting: review of patient safety and satisfaction in 414 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(1):56-63.
• [15]Fok MW, Klausmeyer MA, Fernandez DL, Orbay JL, Bergada AL. Volar plate fixation of intra-articular distal radius fractures: a retrospective study. J Wrist Surg. 2013; 2(3):247-54.
• [16]Arora R, Lutz M, Hennerbichler A, Krappinger D, Espen D, Gabl M. Complications following internal fixation of unstable distal radius fracture with a palmar locking-plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21(5):316-22.
• [17]Johnson NA, Cutler L, Dias JJ, Ullah AS, Wildin CJ, Bhowal B. Complications after volar locking plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Injury. 2014; 45(3):528-33.
• [18]Soong M, van Leerdam R, Guitton TG, Got C, Katarincic J, Ring D. Fracture of the distal radius: risk factors for complications after locked volar plate fixation. J Hand Surg Am. 2011; 36(1):3-9.
• [19]Esenwein P, Sonderegger J, Gruenert J, Ellenrieder B, Tawfik J, Jakubietz M. Complications following palmar plate fixation of distal radius fractures: a review of 665 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013; 133(8):1155-62.
• [20]SooHoo NF, Krenek L, Eagan MJ, Gurbani B, Ko CY, Zingmond DS. Complication rates following open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(5):1042-9.
• [21]Rehn CH, Kirkegaard M, Viberg B, Larsen MS. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults: a systematic review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1370-3.
• [22]Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, Wolf BR. Risk factors for thirty-day morbidity and mortality following knee arthroscopy: a review of 12,271 patients from the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(14):e98 1-10.
• [23]Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Hanscom B, Skinner JS et al.. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006; 296(20):2441-50.
• [24]Backes M, Schep NW, Luitse JS, Goslings JC, Schepers T. Indications for implant removal following intra-articular calcaneal fractures and subsequent complications. Foot Ankle Int. 2013; 34(11):1521-5.
• [25]Minkowitz RB, Bhadsavle S, Walsh M, Egol KA. Removal of painful orthopaedic implants after fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(9):1906-12.
• [26]Brown OL, Dirschl DR, Obremskey WT. Incidence of hardware-related pain and its effect on functional outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2001; 15(4):271-4.
• [27]Court-Brown CM, Gustilo T, Shaw AD. Knee pain after intramedullary tibial nailing: its incidence, etiology, and outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 1997; 11(2):103-5.
• [28]Miller AN, Paul O, Boraiah S, Parker RJ, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Functional outcomes after syndesmotic screw fixation and removal. J Orthop Trauma. 2010; 24(1):12-6.
• [29]Tucker A, Street J, Kealey D, McDonald S, Stevenson M. Functional outcomes following syndesmotic fixation: a comparison of screws retained in situ versus routine removal - Is it really necessary? Injury. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.08.011.
• [30]Gosling T, Hufner T, Hankemeier S, Zelle BA, Muller-Heine A, Krettek C. Femoral nail removal should be restricted in asymptomatic patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 423:222-6.