Unstable pelvic fractures in women: implications on obstetric outcome.

PURPOSE: Obstetric outcomes in women following pelvic injuries requiring surgical fixation is not thoroughly known. We aimed to evaluate if radiographic measurements (RMs) can be used to provide information on delivery methods outcome after these injuries, and to evaluate if metal work removal is required prior to delivery. METHOD: A retrospective study in a level 1 trauma centre of female patients with pelvic fractures treated operatively, aged 16-45 at the time of injury. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding their obstetric history. RM evaluating pelvic symmetry, displacement, and pelvimetry were conducted on postoperative radiographs and CT scans. Patients who gave birth after the injury were divided to two groups according to the delivery method: vaginal delivery (VD) and caesarean section (CS). These two groups RM were compared. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included, comparison of the RM of patients who delivered by CS (9) and patients who had only VD (11) showed no significant difference between the groups. Two patients underwent a trial of VD who subsequently underwent urgent CS due to prolonged labour, their RM were below the average and their pelvimetry measurements were above the cut-off for CS recommendation. Eleven patients had uncomplicated VD, all had retained sacroiliac screws at the time of delivery and one patient had an anterior pubic plate. CONCLUSION: Postoperative RM did not show an effect on delivery method of women after pelvic fracture fixation. A relatively high number of patients who underwent normal vaginal delivery had retained sacroiliac screws. These findings can form the foundation for larger cohort studies.

Staged vs concurrent hardware removal in total ankle arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle osteoarthritis is more commonly posttraumatic. Consequently, dealing with hardware removal is quite frequent when performing a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes regarding either a staged or concurrent hardware removal when performing TAA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 275 consecutive patients with TAA previously treated with internal fixation were retrospectively reviewed. Finally, 57 patients were enrolled based on exclusion criteria, and were differentiated into two groups considering the timing of hardware removal (staged-group A vs concurrent-group B) to compare: neurovascular and wound complications, time to recover full weight bearing, scar-tissue esthetic, and surgical time. Moreover, a subgroup comparison considering the surgical approach (single approach, minor additional approach, major additional approach) was performed between the group A and group B. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference other that longer surgical time (p < 0.05) was observed between group A and group B. When considering surgical approach subgroups, statistically significant higher surgical wound complications and revision rate were reported in group B (concurrent) major additional approach subgroup, and a statistically significant shorter time to full weight bearing was reported in group A (staged) major additional approach subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: When performing TAA requiring hardware removal, no clear superiority of staged over concurrent hardware removal was observed. However, when considering a subgroup of patients requiring a separate major incision, a staged approach has shown reduced surgical time, less risk of wound complications, and shorter recovery to full weight bearing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Effect of hardware removal and second-look arthroscopy after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) is the standard and safe procedure for medial compartment osteoarthritis. Although hardware removal (HWR) is performed after post-OWHTO bone union, the effects of HWR on OWHTO have been rarely reported. We hypothesised that HWR would improve range of motion (ROM) and implant-related complications. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the effects of HWR on postoperative ROM, the Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score/visual analogue scale (VAS) score and hardware-related complications after OWHTO. METHODS: Patients who underwent OWHTO between January 2016 and June 2018 and HWR were retrospectively reviewed. To perform OWHTO, locking plates and prosthetic bone were used to achieve optimal stabilisation of biplanar osteotomy. HWR was performed after a second-look arthroscopy through the previous skin incision. For clinical evaluation, the JOA score, VAS score, and ROM were assessed before and 1 year after HWR using the Wilcoxon rank test. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of post-HWR improvement. RESULTS: Of 98 knees examined (91 patients), 80 (73 patients; 39 men and 34 women) were included. At the time of OWHTO, mean age was 64.0 ± 9.7 years and body mass index, 25.5 ± 3.1 kg/m2; Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 1 was seen in 20 cases, KL-2 in 46, and KL-3 in 14. Mean periods between OWHTO and HWR were 13.4 ± 2.0 months, and 11.9 ± 1.2 months between HWR and evaluation. The JOA score and flexion angle significantly improved after HWR (The JOA score: p = 0.026 flexion angle: p < 0.001); however, the VAS score and extension angle did not (VAS score: p = 0.162, extension angle: p = 0.934). Hardware irritation was observed in four cases (5%), which improved after HWR. Logistic regression analysis revealed that lower preoperative KL grade and flexion angle were predictors of improvement after HWR [KL grade: p = 0.008; odds ratio 3.244, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.350-7.794; flexion angle: p < 0.001; odds ratio 1.150, 95% CI 1.062-1.245]. CONCLUSION: HWR improves flexion angle, clinical outcomes and hardware-related complications after OWHTO. Preoperative KL grade and flexion angle are predictors of improvement after HWR in patients who have undergone OWHTO.

Factors Associated With Implant Removal Following Plate-and-Screw Fixation of Isolated Metacarpal Fractures.

PURPOSE: The incidence of and associated risk factors for implant removal following the plate-and-screw fixation of metacarpal shaft fractures have not been well described. The primary objective of our study was to identify implant-related radiographic parameters associated with implant removal in patients treated with the plate-and-screw fixation of isolated, displaced metacarpal fractures at 2 years of follow-up. The secondary objective of our study was to identify patient-related factors associated with implant removal. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients who underwent open treatment of a metacarpal fracture with a plate-and-screw construct from January 1, 2000, to April 30, 2019, at 2 level-1 trauma centers was conducted. After the application of exclusion criteria, we identified 138 patients with a single isolated metacarpal fracture of a nonthumb digit treated with open reduction and internal fixation using a plate-and-screw construct. Our study endpoint was the removal of the plate-and-screw construct or a minimum of 2 years of follow-up without the removal of the hardware. Twenty-three patients achieved our study endpoint as determined using their electronic medical records, and 58 additional patients were reached via telephone to confirm their implant removal status. A bivariate analysis was used to screen for factors associated with implant removal, and variables significant in the bivariate screen were included in a multivariable stepwise logistic regression model. RESULTS: Twenty-three out of 81 patients (28%) in our final cohort underwent implant removal by the final follow-up visit. In the logistic regression analysis, the distance between the plate and metacarpophalangeal joint, the distance between the plate and carpometacarpal joint, and active smoking were independently associated with implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: The proximity of metacarpal plates to adjacent joints is associated with subsequent implant removal. Patients may be counseled about the higher risk of implant removal when periarticular metacarpal plating is performed. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis IV.

Risk of Volar Locking Plate Removal After Distal Radius Fractures: Time-to-Event Analysis.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to describe the rate of volar locking plate (VLP) removal after distal radius fracture and how long it takes for the risk of VLP removal to stabilize. The secondary purpose was to describe the reasons for VLP removal and analyze the relationship between it and the Soong index. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients aged >18 years with distal radius fracture who underwent VLP fixation were included. Hardware removal, time until VLP removal, and the primary reason for removal were recorded. The implant prominence was measured as described by Soong. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and risk tables to describe the risk of VLP removal and variation over time. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between Soong grade and VLP removal. RESULTS: A total of 313 wrists were included. There were 35 cases of VLP removal, with an overall incidence of 11.2% at 15 years of follow-up. The incidence rate was 1.2 per 100 individuals per year for the entire cohort. The risk of VLP removal decreased from 6.2% in the first postoperative year to 1.7% in the second year and 1.4% in the third year. Beyond that, the rate remained <1% per year throughout the follow-up period. The median hardware removal time was 11 months. The main reasons for VLP removal were tenosynovitis, implant-associated pain, and screw protrusion. We found no association between Soong grade and VLP removal. CONCLUSIONS: Volar locking plate removal after distal radius fracture was more common in the first year after surgery and remained notable until the third year. Regular monitoring and patient education to assess possible complications related to hardware are important during this period. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Risk Factors for Complications in Ulnar Shortening Osteotomies: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

PURPOSE: Ulnar shortening osteotomy (USO) is commonly performed to alleviate pathologies causing ulnar-sided wrist pain. Surgical complications include nonunion and hardware removal, with rates up to 18% and 45%, respectively. The primary objective of the study was to report the overall complication rate of USO. The secondary objective was to identify risk factors for complications. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort review was undertaken, including six Canadian cities over a 6-year period (January 2013-December 2018). Chart review was used to collect demographic data, surgical technique, implant used, and postoperative complications. Descriptive statistics of demographics and operative characteristics, including plate positioning, type of osteotomy, plate type, and ulnar variance (mm), were analyzed. Univariate analyses were used to select predictor variables for nonunion and hardware removal. These predictor variables were then entered into an adjusted multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 361 USOs were performed. Mean age was 46 ± 16 years (60.7% men). The overall complication rate was 37.1%, hardware removal rate was 29.6%, and nonunion rate was 9.4%. There was a workers' compensation claim associated with 21.6% of all complications, and it was a risk factor for both hardware removal (odds ratio [OR] = 3.81) and nonunion (OR = 2.88). Neither smoking nor diabetes was associated with complication rates. Seventy percent of plates were placed volarly, 25.5% dorsally, and 3.9% directly ulnar. Osteotomies were oblique in 83.7% of cases and transverse in 15.5%. Adjusted multivariate regression analysis revealed that younger age (OR = 0.98) was a risk factor for hardware removal and male sex (OR = 2.49) was a risk factor for nonunion. A surgical factor associated with hardware removal was direct ulnar plate placement (OR = 9.93). No surgical factors were associated with nonunions. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial rates of complications with USOs. Direct ulnar plate placement should be avoided. Patients should be thoroughly counseled on the risks of complications prior to proceeding with USO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Indications for the removal of implants after fracture healing: A comparison between human and veterinary medicine.

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing are still under debate in both human and veterinary medicine. Although hardware removal is a common procedure, it should not be undertaken lightly. Intra and post-operative complications are common and a thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits should be performed. This review aimed to collect and summarise published data on the indications for implant removal in small animals, compare the collected data with human and equine medicine, and investigate the existence of guidelines for this purpose. There is no international consensual agreement for implant removal after fracture healing, neither in small animals nor in human orthopaedics. Decision-making processes are still controversial in some scenarios, thus clear evidence-based protocols for implant removal are needed.

Suture button placed beneath plate fixation for complex distal clavicle fractures and acromioclavicular joint injuries: a technical note.

Patients with complex distal clavicle and acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries are at risk of loss of reduction, especially when plates are removed postoperatively. The purpose is to review the authors' preferred technique for treatment of distal clavicle and AC joint injuries utilizing combined suture button and plate fixation, aiming to optimize biomechanical strength of fixation and limit loss of reduction after implant removal. Pre-contoured locking plates or hook plates were utilized atop suture buttons to maintain reduction and optimize biomechanical strength. At final follow-up over one year after plate removal and suture button retention in thirteen patients, reduction was maintained to coracoclavicular interval 1.5 ± 1.4 mm less than contralaterally. DASH scores at final follow-up averaged 5.7 ± 2.5 (range: 3.3 - 11.7). Placing suture button fixation prior to and beneath plate fixation in complex AC joint injuries and distal clavicle fractures allows for maintained fixation and prevents loss of reduction after plate removal.

Low rate of substantial loss of reduction immediately after hardware removal following acromioclavicular joint stabilization using a suspensory fixation system.

PURPOSE: To evaluate immediate loss of reduction in patients undergoing hardware removal after arthroscopically assisted acromioclavicular (AC) joint stabilization using a high-tensile suture tape suspensory fixation system and to identify risk factors associated with immediate loss of reduction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients with a mean age of 36.4 ± 12.6 years (19-56), who underwent hardware removal 18.2 ± 15.0 months following arthroscopically assisted stabilization surgery using a suspensory fixation system for AC joint injury between 01/2012 and 01/2021 were enrolled in this retrospective monocentric study. The coracoclavicular distance (CCD) as well as the clavicular dislocation/acromial thickness (D/A) ratio were measured on anterior-posterior radiographs prior to hardware removal and immediately postoperatively by two independent raters. Loss of reduction, defined as 10% increase in the CCD, was deemed substantial if the CCD increased 6 mm compared to preoperatively. Constitutional and surgical characteristics were assessed in a subgroup analysis to detect risk factors associated with loss of reduction. RESULTS: Postoperatively, the CCD significantly increased from 12.6 ± 3.7 mm (4.8-19.0) to 14.5 ± 3.3 mm (8.7-20.6 mm) (p < 0.001) while the D/A ratio increased from 0.4 ± 0.3 (- 0.4-0.9) to 0.6 ± 0.3 (1.1-0.1) (p = 0.034) compared to preoperatively. In 10 cases (45%), loss of reduction was identified, while a substantial loss of reduction (> 6 mm) was only observed in one patient (4.5%). A shorter time interval between index stabilization surgery and hardware removal significantly corresponded to immediate loss of reduction (11.0 ± 5.6 vs. 30.0 ± 20.8 months; p = 0.007), as hardware removal within one year following index stabilization was significantly associated with immediate loss of reduction (p = 0.027; relative risk 3.4; odds ratio 11.67). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial loss of reduction after hardware removal of a high-tensile suture tape suspensory fixation system was rare, indicating that the postoperative result of AC stabilization is not categorically at risk when performing this procedure. Even though radiological assessment of the patients showed a statistically significant immediate superior clavicular displacement after this rarely required procedure, with an increased incidence in the first year following stabilization, this may not negatively influence the results of ACJ stabilization in a clinically relevant way. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

The Impact of the Soong Index on Hardware Removal and Overall Reoperation Rates After Volar Locking Plate Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures.

PURPOSE: This study sought to determine the impact of volar plate prominence on reoperation rates after open reduction and internal fixation of distal radius fractures with volar locking plates and to identify other factors associated with removal of hardware (ROH) or a reoperation. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent distal radius open reduction and internal fixation between 2012 and 2016 at 2 level I trauma centers was conducted. Plate prominence was evaluated using the Soong index at the first postoperative visit. The details of patient demographics, fracture and plate characteristics, complications, and reoperations were recorded. Bivariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with increased rates of ROH and overall reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 732 (70.2%) of 1,042 patients completed follow-up at an average of 38.2 months, including 34 patients with bilateral operations, yielding 766 distal radius fractures. One hundred sixteen (15.1%) patients underwent reoperation at an average of 12.1 ± 13.6 months after the index surgery. Removal of hardware was the most commonly performed reoperation (77 patients, 10%). The multivariable regression analysis revealed significantly higher rates of ROH in Soong grade 1 or 2 patients (odds ratio 16, 95% CI 5.8-47; odds ratio 44, 95% CI 14-140, respectively) than in Soong grade 0 patients. Plate type, younger age, bilateral injuries, and concomitant procedures at the time of the index operation were all associated with increased risk of ROH. There were significant differences between individual surgeons the in rates of ROH (range 2.1%-22%) and overall reoperation (range 5.2%-36%). Compared with other hand surgeons, fellowship-trained hand surgeons had lower rates of ROH (8% vs 14%, respectively) and overall reoperation (12% vs 22%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of ROH and overall reoperation increase with increasing Soong grade. Plate type is independently predictive of future ROH. Older patients and those undergoing open reduction and internal fixation experience lower rates of subsequent reoperation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Does implant removal of superior clavicle plate osteosynthesis affect the functional outcome: a prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) accounts for up to 30% of all orthopaedic surgeries. While there is general acceptance about the need of implant removal for obvious reasons, such as infections or implant failure, little is known about the beneficial aspects in cases of minor reasons such as patients' wish for IR. Therefore, we initiated this study to define patients' benefit of elective implant removal following plate osteosynthesis of displaced clavicle fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective evaluation of patients was conducted before implant removal and 6 weeks postoperative. Subjective and objective criteria included pain rating on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and active range of motion (ROM) pre- and 6 weeks postoperative. Functional scoring included Constant-Murley Score, DASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score), MSQ (Munich Shoulder Questionnaire) and SPADI (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index). RESULTS: 37 patients were prospectively enrolled in this study and implant removal was performed after 16 ± 6.1 months. No re-fractures nor other complications were detected during routine follow up. Functional outcome increased through all scores (Constant score 73.3 ± 14.6 preoperative to 87.4 ± 12.0 postoperative (p = 0.000), MSQ 85.0 ± 7.3 preoperative to 91.8 ± 9.0 postoperative (p = 0.005), DASH Score 7.4 ± 8.2 preoperative to 5.7 ± 9.5 postoperative (p = 0.414), SPADI 93.4 ± 6.6 preoperative to 94.0 ± 10.1 postoperative (p = 0.734). CONCLUSIONS: Discomfort during daily activities or performing sports as well as limited range of motion were the main reasons for patients' wish for implant removal. We found increased functional outcome parameters and decreased irritation after implant removal. Therefore we suggest implant removal in case of patients' wish and completed fracture consolidation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration no: NCT04343118, Retrospective registered: www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Risk of Reoperation in Simple Ankle Fracture Surgery When Comparing Locking Plate With Nonlocking Plate.

Locking plates were initially designed to provide improved stability to ankle fractures with poor bone quality but are currently widely used. The aim of this study was to compare the reoperation risk when using locking plates compared with nonlocking plates in patients with simple ankle fractures. This study was a population-based register study. Data regarding patients with AO type 44A1/2 and 44B1/2 injuries who were treated with either locking or nonlocking plates were obtained from the Danish Fracture Database. The follow-up period was 24 months. Major complications were defined as complications requiring surgical intervention, with the exception of simple hardware removal 6 weeks after primary surgery, which was defined as a minor complication. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine relative risk (RR), adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA)-score, and level of the surgeon's experience. A total of 2177 ankle fractures were included, among which 718 (33%) were treated with locking plates, and 1459 (67%) were treated with nonlocking plates. Data were linked with the Danish National Patient Registry to ensure complete information was obtained regarding reoperations, which were divided into major and minor complications. In both groups, the risks for major and minor complications were 3% and 22%, respectively, resulting in adjusted RRs of 1.00 (0.66; 1.66) for major reoperation comparing locking with nonlocking plates and 0.92 (0.76; 1.11) for minor reoperations. We conclude that no significant association with reoperation exists for locking compared with nonlocking plates among patients with surgically treated simple ankle fractures.

Does dual plating clavicle fractures increase the risk of refracture after hardware removal? A biomechanical investigation.

BACKGROUND: Dual orthogonal plating of midshaft clavicle fractures is increasingly used for osteosynthesis. The risk of refracture after hardware removal remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the torsional and 3-point bending loads to failure of the clavicle following removal of single-plane, superior 3.5-mm plate fixation vs. dual orthogonal plating 2.7-mm constructs. METHODS: This study used 12 pairs of clavicles (N = 24) harvested from cadaveric specimens with a mean age at death of 56.5 years (range, 46-65 years). One clavicle from each pair was randomly assigned to either superior plating (SP, n = 12) or double plating (DP, n = 12). For SP, a superior 3.5-mm plate was used as a template to drill 3 bicortical 2.8-mm holes medial and lateral to the center of the clavicle. For DP, two 2.7-mm plates were used as a template to drill 4 bicortical 2.0-mm holes medial and lateral to the center of the clavicle. Clavicle pairs were randomly and evenly distributed to undergo either 3-point bending (n = 12) or posterior torsional loading (n = 12). Cyclic loading was performed, followed by load-to-failure testing. Stiffness, displacement at failure, load to failure, and failure mode were assessed and compared between SP and DP constructs. RESULTS: No significant differences between the SP and DP groups were observed for stiffness (768.2 ± 281.3 N/mm vs. 785.5 ± 315.0 N/mm, P = .872), displacement at failure (8.1 ± 2.8 mm vs. 5.4 ± 1.2 mm, P = .150), and ultimate load at failure (1831.0 ± 229.6 N vs. 1842.0 ± 662.4 N, P = .964) under the condition of 3-point bending. Similarly, no significant differences between the SP and DP groups were observed for torsional stiffness (1.3 ± 0.8 N · m/° vs. 1.1 ± 0.4 N · m/°, P = .844), rotation at failure (17.3° ± 4.4° vs. 14.4° ± 1.2°, P = .205), and ultimate torque at failure (14.8 ± 6.5 N · m vs. 14.7 ± 6.9 N · m, P = .103) under the condition of posterior torsional loading. The most common mode of failure for 3-point bending testing was an oblique fracture (7 of 12 clavicles, 58.3%), with no significant difference between groups (3 of 6 in SP group [50%] vs. 4 of 6 in DP group [66.7%], P > .999). The most common mode of failure with posterior torsional loading was a spiral fracture (10 of 12 clavicles, 83.3%), with no significant difference between groups (4 of 6 in SP group [66.7%] vs. 6 of 6 in DP group [100%], P = .455). CONCLUSION: Following clavicle plate removal of either DP or SP, there is no statistically significant difference in the amount of force, under the condition of 3-point bending or torsional loading, required to fracture the diaphyseal clavicle in vitro.

Risk factors for hardware removal following operative treatment of middle- and distal-third clavicular fractures.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of hardware removal (HWR) after operative fixation of clavicular fractures varies widely. Risk factors related to HWR remain incompletely understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of and risk factors for HWR after plate fixation of middle- and distal-third clavicular fractures. We hypothesized that (1) the total HWR incidence would be <20%, (2) the HWR incidence of operatively treated distal- and middle-third clavicular fractures would not be statistically different, and (3) symptomatic implants would be the most common HWR indication. METHODS: We performed a multi-hospital retrospective study of skeletally mature patients who underwent plate fixation of middle- and distal-third clavicular fractures from November 2008 to November 2018. Data included patient demographic characteristics, mechanism of injury, operative records, hardware-related symptoms, subsequent HWR, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (aged 16-75 years, 76.7% male patients) were included. Of the patients, 87 (84.5%) underwent plate fixation for midshaft clavicular fractures and 16 (15.5%) underwent plate fixation for distal-third clavicular fractures. HWR was performed in 13 patients (12.6%). A significantly higher percentage of HWR procedures were performed for distal clavicular fractures (50%) than for middle-third clavicular fractures (4.9%, P < .0001). An initial high-energy mechanism of injury was associated with HWR (P = .0025). The most common indication for HWR was symptomatic hardware (69.2%). The overall complication rate was 14.5%. CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of clavicular HWR was 12.6%. A distal fracture location was associated with a significantly higher incidence of HWR. An initial high-energy mechanism of injury was a significant risk factor for HWR. The primary indication for HWR was symptomatic hardware.

Outcomes of hip arthroplasty with concomitant hardware removal: influence of the type of implant retrieved and impact of positive intraoperative cultures.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of residual internal fixation devices on subsequent procedures about the hip has not been clearly well defined. The objective of the current study is to evaluate the outcome of hip arthroplasty after hardware retrieval as a one-stage replacement, to analyze possible differences related to the type of removed implant, and to assess the impact of unexpected intraoperative cultures during implant retrieval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a retrospective study including all those cases undergoing hip arthroplasty with concomitant hardware removal (cannulated screws, intramedullary nail, or dynamic hip screw) from 2005 to 2018. We evaluated demographics, intraoperative cultures, early infection rate, and other complications. RESULTS: A total of 55 cases were included in the study. The median time between the implant surgery and the hip arthroplasty was 113 days. The removed devices included 6 cannulated screws, 34 intramedullary nails, and 15 dynamic hip screws. Up to 74.5% of the failed osteosynthesis belonged to intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Dislocation rate was 9.1% (1.8% requiring revision surgery), 25.5% of the cases needed further new surgeries after the hip arthroplasty, and 49.1% died during the follow-up period. Any-cause revision surgery and mortality rates were significantly increased after intramedullary nail removal. Intraoperative cultures were performed in 46 cases, and in 9 (16.4%), there was bacterial contamination: 6 cases (10.9%) presented one single positive culture and 3 (5.5%) presented ≥ 2 positive cultures for the same microorganism. A total of five cases (9.1%) presented early prosthetic joint infection that required debridement. None of these five cases had presented positive cultures at the implant removal. CONCLUSION: According to our results, hip arthroplasty with concomitant hardware removal is related to a high 5-year mortality rate, mainly when intramedullary nail is retrieved. Whereas a high risk of early prosthetic joint infection is associated, it seems not to be related to the elevated presence of unexpected positive cultures.

A novel technique for retrieval of a broken biopsy needle.

A broken needle is a rare complication of bone biopsy. We describe an easily applied technique of retrieval of a retained biopsy needle fragment using a cannulated drill typically used for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. This approach allows for removal under moderate conscious sedation and can be performed by a radiologist using fluoroscopic or CT-fluoroscopic guidance in the radiology suite.

Can low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis for olecranon fractures reduce implant removal? A retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Because of poor soft-tissue coverage at the proximal ulna and prominent posteriorly positioned implants, hardware removal remains the most common reason for revision surgery of olecranon fractures that were operatively treated using plate osteosynthesis. We hypothesized that low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis would reduce the number of soft tissue-related hardware removals compared with single posterior plating whereas the functional results would be comparable. METHODS: This study retrospectively included patients who were treated with low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis or a posterior 2.7-/3.5-mm locking compression plate (LCP) for isolated olecranon fractures from 3 study centers. In addition to the implant removal rate, functional outcome measures (range of motion; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score) were statistically compared. RESULTS: The study included 79 patients, with a mean follow-up period of 36 months (range, 24-77 months). Of these patients, 37 were treated with low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis and 42, with a 2.7-/3.5-mm LCP. The mean age was 57 years (range, 18-93 years). Range of motion after treatment with low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis and a 2.7-/3.5-mm LCP measured 129° (range, 80°-155°) and 139° (range, 100°-155°), respectively. The Mayo Elbow Performance Scores were 95 (range, 65-100) and 99 (range, 85-100), respectively (P = .028), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 5.0 (range, 0-49) and 4.6 (range, 0-28), respectively (P = .673). Hardware was removed in 32% and 50% of patients after treatment with double-plate osteosynthesis and a 2.7-/3.5-mm LCP, respectively (P = .11). Hardware removal owing to soft-tissue irritation was noted in 27% of patients after double-plate osteosynthesis and 38% after LCP treatment (P = .30). DISCUSSION: Low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis for treating olecranon fractures resulted in good clinical outcomes. However, the rate of hardware removal was not significantly reduced, and the functional results were comparable to those of common single-posterior plate osteosynthesis.

Staged vs Concurrent Hardware Removal During Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Conversion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the presence of periarticular hardware can be associated with increased resource utilization, complications, and revisions. However, little guidance exists on the optimal approach to hardware removal. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of conversion TKA with hardware removal performed in either a staged or concurrent manner. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 155 TKA operations performed with staged (45) or concurrent (110) removal of hardware at the time of TKA. Differences in patient data, case data, complications, reoperations, and revisions were evaluated. Subgroup comparisons of cases involving major hardware (plates, nails, rods), minor hardware (screws, buttons, wires), and tibial plates were performed. RESULTS: There were no differences in age, sex, body mass index, or comorbidities between patients who underwent staged or concurrent hardware removal. Rates of complications, reoperations, and revisions did not differ at multiple time points (90 days, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years). Patients who underwent staged hardware removal were more likely to have had prior surgery for fracture reconstruction (68% vs 33%, P < .001), to have had major hardware removed (84% vs 59%, P = .03), and were less likely to have had hardware removal performed through a single incision with TKA (50% vs 92%, P < .001). Subgroup analysis of major and minor hardware cases demonstrated comparable outcomes. CONCLUSION: There remains no established benefit to either a staged or concurrent approach to hardware removal at the time of TKA. This is true regardless of hardware burden. At this time, a case-by-case approach should be taken to conversion TKA in the presence of periarticular hardware.

Complications of implant removal after healed hip fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Osteosynthesis of pertrochanteric fractures is one of the most frequently performed procedures in orthopaedic trauma care. Auto-dynamization during fracture healing can lead to lateralization of the screw or blade. This can cause debilitating complaints, which sometimes necessitate the removal of the screw or blade. After removal of the implant, we observed spontaneous femoral neck fractures in five patients. This article presents an evaluation of these cases with reference to literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five cases of spontaneous femoral neck fracture (SFNF) after cephalomedullary nail removal are described. A literature search was performed on the incidence of chronic pain and gait impairment associated with auto-dynamization, and on risk factors for dynamization and complications after implant removal. Based on these findings recommendations are made for the prevention of SFNF. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, we observed five cases of SFNF after cephalomedullary nail removal. In literature, reduced mobility, gait impairment and chronic pain are associated with screw or blade dynamization. Pertrochanteric fractures with AO-type 2 classification were associated with more dynamization and screw lateralization and henceforth more trochanteric pain and gait disturbances. SFNF after cephalomedullary nail removal occurs with an incidence of at least 15%, affecting mostly elderly patients. This severe complication mostly occurs within 3 weeks after implant removal. Risk factors associated with SFNF are pre-existing systemic osteoporosis, stress-shielding, pre-loading of the implant and nail removal of the cephalomedullary implant. CONCLUSION: The clinical indications for implant removal in healed pertrochanteric fractures are not well established and should be restricted to specific cases. After removal of these implants without replacement partial weight-bearing should be advised strictly. Based on our findings it is recommended to replace the cephalomedullary nail with a shorter one, ideally combined with implant augmentation.

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of anterior cruciate ligament repair: hardware removal has no effect on knee laxity at 2-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) stabilizes the knee joint during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) healing. After 6 months, tibial hardware removal is offered to the patients if local discomfort at the implant site is present. AIM: This study compared knee laxity and functional scores 2 years after DIS between patients with and without hardware removal. It is hypothesized that it does not affect ACL healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 173 patients with either hardware removal (n = 47) or no additional intervention (n = 126). Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was applied to balance the groups for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the side-to-side difference in knee laxity measured with the rolimeter at manual maximum force (Δ-Lachman). Secondary outcomes were the pivot-shift test and subjective scores. RESULTS: Mean age was 34 years in both groups, and female gender was 47% (hardware removal group) and 50% (control group), respectively. No significant differences were found for Δ-Lachman (p = 0.09), pivot-shift test (p = 0.41), and subjective scores (p > 0.10) two years after DIS. CONCLUSION: Knee laxity 2 years after DIS in patients with tibial hardware removal and patients without hardware removal was not significantly different. The groups were also similar regarding all the assessed functional scores. This study confirms the hypothesis that the healing ACL resumes its stabilizing role, and the hardware can be removed beginning 6 months after surgery without adverse consequences for joint stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case-control study, Level III.