Percutaneous removal of hardware after orthopedic surgery: Is it safe? and What are patients saying?

OBJECTIVES: To analyze our patient's complication profile and rate after removal of hardware (ROH) surgery, and survey our patients to ask their overall status and improvement in symptomatology post-operatively. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and survey. SETTING: Academic, tertiary referral center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: 173 patients with 314 pieces of hardware. Seventy-six patients (43.9%) responded to our survey. INTERVENTION: ROH surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics and complications were recorded. All patients were sent a brief 3-question survey which asked: (1) Why did you get your hardware removed? (2) How did your overall status change after ROH? (3) How did the ROH affect your stiffness, pain, swelling, and mobility? RESULTS: There were 10 complications (5.5%): 5 infections, 2 with unresolved pain, 1 hematoma, 1 chronic regional pain syndrome exacerbation, and 1 recurrent deformity. All infections were treated with oral antibiotics and improved. All other complications resolved with treatment except for the patient who developed recurrent deformity. Patients underwent ROH surgery because their doctor suggested it (76.3%) and to improve mobility (39.5%). 86.9% reported their overall status improved after ROH. They improved regarding stiffness (73.7%), pain (73.6%), swelling (61.8%), and mobility (76.3%). Similar results were seen among different implants removed. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who underwent percutaneous ROH were satisfied. They reported improvement in stiffness, pain, swelling and mobility (greatest improvement). The complication rate was low (5.5%). ROH can be a meaningful operation to patients allowing them to improve their quality of life with a low complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Extra-articular Osteotomy for the Management of Intra-articular Tibial Plateau Valgus Malunion.

OBJECTIVES: To report a case series of extra-articular osteotomies for the management of intra-articular tibial plateau malunions and to assess the ability to correct deformity and improve knee range of motion (ROM). METHODS: . DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Academic, tertiary, referral center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with tibial plateau fracture malunion treated with extra-articular osteotomy of the femur and/or tibia between 2014 and 2023. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISON: Mechanical axis deviation (MAD), medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and posterior proximal tibia angle (PPTA) correction; knee ROM; and time to weight bearing. RESULTS: There were 7 patients included, 6 (85.7%) were female and 1 (14.3%) were male. The median age was 43.5 years (IQR 38.5-51, range 32-62). Four (57.1%) patients were treated with a high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and 3 (42.9%) patients were treated with an HTO and distal femoral osteotomy. One patient had concomitant supramalleolar osteotomy with HTO to address distal tibia procurvatum and valgus. Four were treated with hexapod frames, and 3 were treated with plates and screws. Median follow-up was 22.5 months (IQR 10.5-107 months, range 7-148 months). Surgical intervention corrected median radiographic measures of valgus malalignment preoperatively relative to postoperative values. This included MAD (42.5 mm-0 mm), valgus angle (12.5 degrees-1.5 degrees), MPTA (95 degrees-88.0°), and LDFA (86.0°-87.3 degrees). Surgical intervention increased maximal knee range of motion preoperatively to postoperatively. Median time to full weight bearing was 81.5 days (IQR 46-57 days, range 41-184 days). Two patients were converted to total knee arthroplasty after 5 and 10 years following HTO with hexapod frame. CONCLUSIONS: Extra-articular osteotomy is an effective treatment for addressing intra-articular malunion after tibia plateau fractures. It is effective in correcting the MAD, valgus deformity, MPTA, LDFA, PPTA, and improving knee ROM (measured through knee extension and flexion). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Distal Femoral Osteotomy for the Management of Coronal Deformity Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Report of 2 Cases.

CASE: We present 2 cases demonstrating the management of coronal malalignment with an existing total knee arthroplasty using opening wedge distal femur osteotomy. The mechanical axis was corrected, and the primary total knee implants were maintained. Patients resumed full activity 3 to 4 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: In certain cases, opening wedge distal femoral osteotomy is an option to correct coronal malalignment with an existing total knee arthroplasty without revising the implant.

Signficant Femoral Version Abnormalities and Patient-Reported Quality of Life.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine how the Limb Deformity-Modified Scoliosis Research Society (LD-SRS) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire scores differ between patients with femoral version abnormalities and healthy control subjects. METHODS: A retrospective database review identified patients with femoral version abnormalities between December 2018 and September 2022. A total of 21 adult patients scheduled for femoral derotational osteotomy and 33 control subjects were included. All individuals completed the LD-SRS and PROMIS questionnaires. RESULTS: Patients with femoral version abnormalities reported significantly worse scores than control subjects on all LD-SRS and PROMIS domains: LD-SRS (Total [3.46 ± 0.66 vs. 4.58 ± 0.37, P < 0.001]; Function/Activity [3.48 ± 0.83 vs. 4.44 ± 0.4, P < 0.001]; Mental Health [3.41 ± 0.96 vs. 4.3 ± 0.73, P < 0.001]; Pain [3.55 ± 0.9 vs. 4.81 ± 0.31, P < 0.001]; and Self-Image/Appearance [3.37 ± 0.79 vs. 4.75 ± 0.43, P < 0.001]) and PROMIS (Function [41.6 ± 7.58 vs. 60.0 ± 7.28, P < 0.001]; Pain Intensity [45.85 ± 8.04 vs. 33.7 ± 4.89, P < 0.001]; Pain Interference [56.78 ± 9.63 vs. 42.8 ± 6.6, P < 0.001]; Global Mental Health [47.97 ± 9.68 vs. 55.3 ± 7.81, P = 0.004]; and Global Physical Health [45.23 ± 7.49 vs. 58.2 ± 7.07, P < 0.001]). DISCUSSION: Patients with femoral version abnormalities reported markedly worse quality of life as measured on the LD-SRS and PROMIS scores compared with healthy control subjects. The combination of these two surveys effectively captures the multifaceted quality-of-life-deficit individuals with excessive femoral version may experience.

Staged Extra-Articular Deformity Correction in the Setting of Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: Extra-articular lower-leg deformities mandate unique considerations when planning total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Poor limb alignment may increase perioperative complications and cause early implant failure. This study reports on the safety and efficacy of staged, extra-articular deformity correction about the knee in the setting of osteoarthritis and TKA. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted from December 2007 to December 2019 identifying 30 deformities in 27 patients (average age: 52.7 years; range 31-74) who underwent staged surgical correction of extra-articular deformity in preparation for TKA. Patient demographics, surgical details, clinical and radiographic measurements, severity of knee arthritis, and complications were collected. Results: There were 17 femur and 12 tibia deformities. There was an average improvement of 14.7° of deformity measured in the coronal plane and 12.7° of deformity in the sagittal plane in the femur and 13.5° in the coronal plane and 10.3° in the sagittal plane in the tibia. Leg length discrepancies improved by 26 mm on average (1-100 mm). After an average 3.1-year follow-up, 12 out of 27 patients proceeded with primary or revision TKA. There were no cases of blood transfusion, nerve palsy, or compartment syndrome, and all patients achieved bony union. Conclusions: Staged, extra-articular deformity correction is a safe and effective approach to improve limb alignment in the setting of knee osteoarthritis and TKA.

The Management of Tibial Bone Defects: A Multicenter Experience of Hexapod and Ilizarov Frames.

INTRODUCTION: Bone defects may be managed with bone transport or acute shortening and lengthening using circular external fixation devices. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes between the Ilizarov frames and hexapod frames for the management of bone defects. METHODS: Patients treated for bone defects using either Ilizarov or hexapod frames were included for analysis in two specialist institutions. Primary outcomes were time to consolidation, bone healing index (BHI), and external fixator index (EFI). Radiographic parameters included the medial proximal tibial angle, lateral distal tibial angle, posterior proximal tibial angle, and anterior distal tibial angle. RESULTS: There were 137 hexapods and 90 Ilizarov frames in total. The mean time to follow-up was 3.7 years in the hexapod group and 4.0 years in the Ilizarov group. Hexapods had a significantly lower time to consolidation (253 days versus 449 days) (P < 0.0001) and BHI (59.1 days/cm versus 87.5 days/cm) (P < 0.0001). Hexapods had a significantly better EFI (72.3 days/cm versus 96.1 days/cm) (P = 0.0009). CONCLUSION: Hexapods may confer a significant advantage over Ilizarov frames in the management of bone defects. Time to consolidation, radiographic parameters, BHI, and EFI are all superior in hexapods.

Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation.

BACKGROUND: When lengthening the tibia segment using motorized internal lengthening nails (MILN), undesired distal migration of the proximal fibula segment is prevented by tibiofibular stabilization, traditionally using a screw. A tightened cortical suspensory fixation rope (tether) is an alternative option, but its appropriateness has never been studied. The primary outcome was comparing the amount of proximal fibular migration between patients who were stabilized with either a tether or a screw. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the effect of fibular migration on the clinical outcome between both groups. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent tibial lengthening with MILN between April 2016 and June 2022. Two cohorts were compared: 18 limbs with tether fixation versus 29 limbs with screw fixation. Data on the patient's age, sex, etiologies, and clinical outcomes were collected. Radiographic measurements included the lengthening distance and the amount of proximal fibular migration. RESULTS: In total, 47 limbs from 41 patients, with average age 35.01 ± 13.72 years old. There were 28 males (68.29%) and 13 females (31.71%). The tether group demonstrated a statistically significant greater distance of migration than the screw group (p < 0.001), with an average migration distance of 8.39 ± 5.09 mm and 2.59 ± 3.06 mm, respectively. No correlation was found between the amount of tibial lengthening and the distance of proximal fibular migration in both the tether group (p = 0.96) and the screw group (p = 0.32). There was no significant difference in the change of knee extension between both groups (p = 0.3), and no patients reported knee pain or tightness. CONCLUSION: A screw provides better resistance to proximal tibiofibular joint migration during MILN lengthening, but the difference appears clinically inconsequential. Either option appears suitable.

Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What are Patients Asking and Reading Online?

Background: Osseointegration (OI) limb has been performed for over 30 years and is an example of an advance in technology and surgical technique which has led to improvements in patient mobility and quality of life. An increasing number of patients seek information about osseointegration. The aim of this study was to categorise the most frequently asked questions by patients using the Google search engine and the most frequently accessed websites with the highest return on answers. The secondary aims of this study were to assess the quality of the information provided on those websites and to stratify, by category, which websites provide the best quality information. Materials and methods: Ten permutations and conjugations of the word 'osseointegration' were entered into Google. The first fifty 'People also ask' and associated websites by Google's machine learning and natural language processing engine were collected for each search term. The Rothwell classification system of questions by topic (Fact, Value, Policy) and websites by category was used (Commercial, Academic, Medical Practice, Single Surgeon Personal, Government, Social Media). Website quality was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (Likert-style rating 0-4). Pearson's Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were performed for statistical analysis as appropriate (significance, p < 0.05). Results: The 10 search terms generated 454 questions and referenced 408 websites. Of the 454 questions generated, the most common question categories were fact (70.8%), value (19.2%), and policy (10%). The most common website type was social media (37.4%). The most common question types were technical details (30.4%), specific activity (20.6%), and cost (14.1%). Only 1.6% of questions related to risks and complications. Generally, website quality was poor with 64.1% having a JAMA score of 0 or 1. Websites that were categorised as 'Government' had the highest overall JAMA scores: 71.4% had a score of 4. Conclusion: Based on Google search engine's results, the most commonly asked questions about osteointegration related to technical details, specific activities and cost; only 1.6% related to risks and complications. Interestingly, social media websites represented the highest volume of search result referrals. Overall, the quality of websites was poor with the most factual information coming from governmental websites. How to cite this article: Murphy EP, Sheridan GA, Page BJ, et al. Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What Are Patients Asking and Reading Online? Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(3):163-168.