Implant removal of osteosynthesis: the Dutch practice. Results of a survey

Journal of Trauma Management & Outcomes

Michiel Verhofstad¹  Beate Hanson³  Dagmar Vos² 

[1] Department of Surgery, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands;Department of Surgery, Amphia Hospital Breda, PO Box 90158, Breda, 4800 RK, Netherlands;AO Clinical Investigation and Documentation, Dübendorf, Switzerland

关键词: Fracture healing;    Complaints;    Survey;    Implant removal;    Osteosynthesis;   

Others  :  801131
DOI  :  10.1186/1752-2897-6-6

 received in 2012-01-16, accepted in 2012-07-23,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aim of this survey study was to evaluate the current opinion and practice of trauma and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands in the removal of implants after fracture healing.

Methods

A web-based questionnaire consisting of 44 items was sent to all active members of the Dutch Trauma Society and Dutch Orthopaedic Trauma Society to determine their habits and opinions about implant removal.

Results

Though implant removal is not routinely done in the Netherlands, 89% of the Dutch surgeons agreed that implant removal is a good option in case of pain or functional deficits. Also infection of the implant or bone is one of the main reasons for removing the implant (> 90%), while making money was a motivation for only 1% of the respondents. In case of younger patients (< 40 years of age) only 34% of the surgeons agreed that metal implants should always be removed in this category. Orthopaedic surgeons are more conservative and differ in their opinion about this subject compared to general trauma surgeons (p = 0.002). Though the far majority removes elastic nails in children (95%).

Most of the participants (56%) did not agree that leaving implants in is associated with an increased risk of fractures, infections, allergy or malignancy. Yet in case of the risk of fractures, residents all agreed to this statement (100%) whereas staff specialists disagreed for 71% (p < 0.001). According to 62% of the surgeons titanium plates are more difficult to remove than stainless steel, but 47% did not consider them safer to leave in situ compared to stainless steel. The most mentioned postoperative complications were wound infection (37%), unpleasant scarring (24%) and postoperative hemorraghe (19%).

Conclusion

This survey indicates that there is no general opinion about implant removal after fracture healing with a lack of policy guidelines in the Netherlands. In case of symptomatic patients a majority of the surgeons removes the implant, but this is not standard practice for every surgeon.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Vos et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT: Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006, 14:113-120.
• [2]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
• [3]Website of Prismant, the independent governmental expert centre for data acquisition and analysis for health care in the Netherlands. 2010. http://www.prismant.nl webcite
• [4]Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenegger H: Manual of internal fixation. Techniques recommended by the AO group. Springer, New York; 1979.
• [5]Krischak GD, Gebhard F, Mohr W, Krivan V, Ignatius A, Beck A, Wachter NJ, Reuter P, Arand M, Kinzl L, Claes LE: Difference in metallic wear distribution released from commercially pure titanium compared with stainless steel plates. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004, 124:104-113.
• [6]Serhan A, Slivka M, Albert T, Kwak SD: Is galvanic corrosion between titanium alloy and stainless steel spinal implants a clinical concern? Spine J 2004, 4:379-387.
• [7]Hamilton P, Doig S, Williamson O: Technical difficulty of metal removal after LISS plating. Injury 2004, 35:626-628.
• [8]Im GI, Lee KB: Difficulties in removing ACE tibial intramedullary nail. Int Orthop 2003, 27:355-358.
• [9]Milia MJ, Vincent AB, Bosse MJ: Retrograde removal of an incarcerated solid titanium femoral nail after subtrochanteric fracture. J Orthop Trauma 2003, 17:521-524.
• [10]Richards RH, Palmer JD, Clarke NM: Observations on removal of metal implants. Injury 1992, 23:25-28.
• [11]Bae JH, Oh JK, Oh CW, Hur CR: Technical difficulties of removal of locking screw after locking compression plating. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009, 129:91-95.
• [12]Minkowitz RB, Bhadsavle S, Walsh M, Egol KA: Removal of painful orthopaedic implants after fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:1906-12.
• [13]Firth D: Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 1993, 80:27-38.
• [14]Böstman O, Pihlajamäki H: Routine implant removal after fracture surgery: a potentially reducible consumer of hospital resources in trauma units. J Trauma 1996, 41:846-849.
• [15]Molster A, Behring J, Gjerdet NR, Ekeland A: Removal of osteosynthetic implants. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2002, 122:2274-2276.
• [16]Jamil W, Allami M, Choudhury MZ, Mann C, Bagga T, Robert A: Do orthopaedic surgeons need a policy on the removal of metalwork? A descriptive national survey of practicing surgeons in the United Kingdom. Injury 2008, 39:362-367.
• [17]Dodenhoff RM, Dainton JN, Hutchins PM: Proximal thigh pain after femoral nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997, 79:738-741.
• [18]Keating JF, Orfaly R, O’Brien PJ: Knee pain after tibial nailing. J Orthop Trauma 1997, 11:10-13.
• [19]Gösling T, Hüfner T, Hankemeier S, Müller U, Richter M, Krettek C: Indication for tibial nail removal. Chirurg 2005, 76:789-794.
• [20]Sidky A, Buckley R: Hardware removal after tibial fracture has healed. Can J Surg 2008, 51:263-268.
• [21]Labosky DA, Cermak MB, Waggy CA: Forearm fracture plates: to remove or not to remove. J Hand Surg Am 1990, 15:294-301.
• [22]Hak DJ, McElvany M: Removal of broken hardware. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008, 16:113-120.
• [23]Chia J, Soh CR, Wong HP, Low YP: Complications following metal removal: a follow-up of surgically treated forearm fractures. Singapore Med J 1996, 37:268-269.
• [24]Deluca PA, Lindsey RW, Ruwe PA: Refracture of bones of the forearm after the removal of compression plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988, 70:1372-1376.
• [25]Hidaka S, Gustilo RB: Refracture of bones in forearm after plate removal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984, 66:1241-1243.
• [26]Jago RD, Hindley CJ: The removal of metalwork in children. Injury 1998, 29:439-441.
• [27]Langkamer VG, Ackroyd CE: Removal of forearm plates. A review of the complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990, 72:601-614.
• [28]Rosson JW, Shearer JR: Refracture after the removal of plates from the forearm. An avoidable complication. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991, 73:415-417.
• [29]Rumball K, Finnegan M: Refractures after forearm plate removal. J Orthop Trauma 1990, 4:124-129.
• [30]Sanderson PL, Ryan W, Turner PG: Complications of metalwork removal. Injury 1992, 23:29-30.
• [31]Trelle S: Accuracy of responses from postal surveys about continuing medical education and information behavior: experiences from a survey among German diabetologists. BMC Health Serv Res 2002, 2:15. BioMed Central Full Text