[Translated article] Use of ultrasound for hardware removal.

INTRODUCTION: Osteosynthesis hardware removal is one of the most frequent practices in Orthopaedic electives surgeries and is usually carried out guided under fluoroscopy. There are other tools such as ultrasound that allow us to visualise the hardware with the advantage of being free of ionising radiation and with better availability. The objective of our study is to analyse the results obtained in patients undergoing hardware removal in the operating room under ultrasound assistance and local anaesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive study was carried out collecting variables such as demographic data, reason for the removal, pain during the procedure and in subsequent days, as well as the duration and rate of success of the procedure and the degree of satisfaction. RESULTS: We obtained a 100% success in ultrasound-guided extraction without the need for conventional radiology, with a mean VAS of 1.91 and need for subsequent analgesia in 36.4% of the cases, with syndesmotic dynamisation being the most frequent reason for intervention. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound is a useful tool in osteosynthesis hardware removal, and that may be sufficient by itself; also saving health personnel and patients from ionising radiation resulting from the use of conventional fluoroscopy.

Use of ultrasound for hardware removal. / La ecografía como herramienta para la extracción de material de osteosíntesis.

INTRODUCTION: Osteosynthesis hardware removal is one of the most frequent practices in Orthopedic electives surgeries and is usually carried out guided under fluoroscopy. There are other tools such as ultrasound that allow us to visualize the hardware with the advantage of being free of ionizing radiation and with better availability. The objective of our study is to analyze the results obtained in patients undergoing hardware removal in the operating room under ultrasound assistance and local anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive study was carried out collecting variables such as demographic data, reason for the removal, pain during the procedure and in subsequent days, as well as the duration and rate of success of the procedure and the degree of satisfaction. RESULTS: We obtained a 100% success in ultrasound-guided extraction without the need for conventional radiology, with a mean VAS of 1.91 and need for subsequent analgesia in 36.4% of the cases, with syndesmotic dynamization being the most frequent reason for intervention. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound is a useful tool in osteosynthesis hardware removal, and that may be sufficient by itself; also saving health personnel and patients from ionizing radiation resulting from the use of conventional fluoroscopy.