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.

Concurrent Hardware Removal is Associated With Increased Odds of Infection Following Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of removal of periarticular implants prior to conversion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare infection rates in conversion TKA when hardware removal was performed in either a staged or concurrent manner. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using a national insurance claims database of patients who underwent removal of hardware on the same day or within 1 year before their TKA. A total of 16,099 patients met the criteria. After matching, both final cohorts consisted of 4,502 patients. The 90-day and 1-year rates of prosthetic joint infection were calculated. RESULTS: The rates of infection were 1.64% and 3.00% in the staged group and 2.62% and 3.95% in the concurrent group at 90 days and 1 year postoperatively, respectively (P = .001, P = .01). Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that patients who had hardware removal greater than 3 months prior to TKA had significantly lower odds of infection at 1-year postop (Odds Ratio 0.61 95% Confidence Interval 0.45-0.84; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Removal of hardware performed concurrently or within 3 months of a TKA is associated with increased odds of prosthetic joint infection at 1 year postoperatively. Surgeons should consider removing periarticular hardware prior to TKA when possible.

Use of calcium phosphate cement after removal of a cephalomedullary nail: A case report.

Femoral neck fracture in the absence of trauma is a rare, but known complication after hardware removal. This complication may be due to the boney defect created by the hardware removal itself, or the increase in femoral neck strain that occurs after removal of the hardware. Previous biomechanical studies have suggested that filling the defect with calcium phosphate cement after removal of hardware may prevent the development of a femoral neck fracture. However, there are no reports on the use of calcium phosphate cement after removal of hardware in the clinical setting. The purpose of this case discussion is to present the first reported case, to our knowledge, of the use of calcium phosphate cement augmentation of the boney defect after lag screw removal, and the subsequent failure resulting in atraumatic femoral neck fracture.

Syndesmotic Screw Breakage May Be More Problematic Than Previously Reported: Increased Rates of Hardware Removal Secondary to Pain With Intraosseous Screw Breakage.

BACKGROUND: The majority of retained syndesmotic screws will either loosen or break once the patient resumes weight-bearing. While evidence is limited, anecdotal experience suggests that intraosseous screw breakage may be problematic for some patients due to painful bony erosion. This study seeks to identify the incidence of intraosseous screw breakage, variables that may predict intraosseous screw breakage, and whether intraosseous screw breakage is associated with higher rates of implant removal secondary to pain. METHODS: Five hundred thirty-one patients undergoing syndesmotic stabilization were screened, of which 43 patients (with 58 screws) experiencing postoperative screw breakage met inclusion criteria. Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, comorbidities, time to screw breakage, location of screw breakage, and implant removal. Several radiographic parameters were evaluated for their potential to influence the site of screw breakage. RESULTS: Intraosseous screw breakage occurred in 32 patients (74.4%). Screw breakage occurred exclusively in the tibiofibular clear space in the remaining 11 instances (25.6%). Intraosseous screw breakage was significantly associated with eventual implant removal after breakage (P = .034). Screws placed further from the tibiotalar joint were at less risk for intraosseous breakage (odds ratio 0.818, P = .002). Screws placed at a threshold height of 20 mm or greater were more likely to break in the clear space (odds ratio 12.1, P = .002). CONCLUSION: Syndesmotic screw breakage may be more problematic than previously described. Intraosseous breakage was associated with higher rates of implant removal secondary to pain in this study. Placement of screws 20 mm or higher from the tibiotalar joint may decrease risk of intraosseous breakage.Levels of Evidence: Level III: Retrospective study.

Peri-implant femoral fractures in hip fracture patients treated with osteosynthesis: a retrospective cohort study of 1965 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are few studies on incidence rates, treatment and outcomes for peri-implant femoral fractures (PIFF) in the proximity of osteosynthesis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of PIFF following osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study comprised a consecutive series of hip fracture patients aged 50 years or older and operated with osteosynthesis between 2003 and 2015. Patients were followed-up until 2018, removal of implants or death, for a mean of 4 years (range 0-15). Data on age, sex, housing, hip complications, and reoperations were recorded. The risk of PIFFs was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. In patients with two fractures during the study period, only the first fracture was included. RESULTS: A total of 1965 osteosynthesis procedures were performed, of which 382 were cephalomedullary nails (CMN), 933 sliding hip devices (SHD) and 650 pins. Mean age was 80 years (range 50-104), 65% of patients were women. A total of 41 PIFFs occurred during the study period. The cumulative incidence of peri-implant fractures was 0.8% for CMN, 2.7% (HR 2.995% CI, 0.87-9.6, p = 0.08) for SHD and 2.0% (HR 2.3 95% CI, 0.6-8.1, p = 0.2) for pins. PIFFs occurred after a mean of 27 months (range 0-143). The 1-year mortality was 34% following PIFF. The majority was treated surgically (66%, 27/41) and the reoperation rate was 15% (4/27). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, in contrast to previous reports, we found a tendency to a higher cumulative incidence of PIFFs for SHD compared to modern CMN. Our results show cumulative incidences of PIFFs comparable to those described for periprosthetic femur fractures after hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

True antiglide fixation of Danis-Weber B fibula fractures has lower rates of removal of hardware.

INTRODUCTION: Plating of unstable OTA/AO 44-B2 equivalent lateral malleolus (Danis-Weber B) fractures has been associated with pain, peroneal irritation, and the need for subsequent hardware removal (ROH). The purpose of this study is to retrospectively compare the rates of ROH in unstable Weber B fractures fixed with a posterior, true antiglide plate with no screws in the distal segment versus those that were fixed with a similarly placed posterior, neutralization construct that included screws in the distal fragment. Thus, evaluating the role of the distal screws in rates of ROH. METHODS: Skeletally mature patients that were treated for an unstable, isolated Weber B fracture at a single level-1 trauma center over a ten-year period were reviewed. Fractures treated with a single posterior plate with at least six months of follow-up were included and those fixed with a direct lateral plate were excluded. The primary outcome of this study was hardware removal defined as entire plate removal; isolated syndesmotic screw removal was not included. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included in the study with average age of 46 years (range 17-83) and mean length of follow-up of 24.5 months (range 6.1-140.3). There were 33 patients in the antiglide group (mean follow-up 25.5 months) and 63 in the neutralization plate group (mean follow-up 24 months, p=0.81). Fractures fixed with or without distal screws had equivalent excellent results related to bony union and alignment. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in ROH rates in the antiglide group (antiglide ROH rate 15.2%; neutralization ROH rate 38.1%; p=0.02). Relative risk of ROH with antiglide plate was 0.4 (95% CI 0.17 - 0.95; p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Antiglide plating shows a significant risk reduction in the rate of ROH when compared to posterior based neutralization plating. A true antiglide plating construct should be considered as a safe and effective way of managing Weber B fractures with a lower relative risk of a second operation for hardware removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Severe pulmonary injury leading to death during thoracic rod removal: a case report.

PURPOSE: Removal of hardware procedures following posterior spinal fusion is most commonly performed for hardware irritation without overt infection. It is imperative that surgeons realize that serious complications may arise from this procedure. The purpose of this report is to report a case of a pneumothorax that developed in a thoracolumbar removal of hardware case that resulted in a patient death. METHODS: Retrospective review of a patient's medical record and imaging. RESULTS: A 74-year-old patient with a history of T4-10 anterior discectomy and fusion with rib autograft and T4-L2 posterior fusion underwent a removal of hardware procedure for delayed surgical site infection. During the procedure, the tip of the bolt cutter jaw broke and entered the pulmonary cavity leading to a pneumothorax. The patient developed pneumonia 1 month postoperatively and passed away. CONCLUSIONS: This case report highlights one of the rare but potential complications of spinal removal of hardware surgery. It is essential that surgeons are aware of the possibility of pulmonary complications during thoracolumbar removal of hardware cases so that they may fully counsel their patients on the potential risks.

Increased risk for complications following removal of hardware in patients with liver disease, pilon or pelvic fractures: A regression analysis.

PURPOSE: Indications for removing orthopedic hardware on an elective basis varies widely. Although viewed as a relatively benign procedure, there is a lack of data regarding overall complication rates after fracture fixation. The purpose of this study is to determine the overall short-term complication rate for elective removal of orthopedic hardware after fracture fixation and to identify associated risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients indicated for elective hardware removal after fracture fixation between July 2012 and July 2016 were screened for inclusion. Inclusion criteria included patients with hardware related pain and/or impaired cosmesis with complete medical and radiographic records and at least 3-month follow-up. Exclusion criteria were those patients indicated for hardware removal for a diagnosis of malunion, non-union, and/or infection. Data collected included patient age, gender, anatomic location of hardware removed, body mass index, ASA score, and comorbidities. Overall complications, as well as complications requiring revision surgery were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 20.0, and included univariate and multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: 391 patients (418 procedures) were included for analysis. Overall complication rates were 8.4%, with a 3.6% revision surgery rate. Univariate regression analysis revealed that patients who had liver disease were at significant risk for complication (p=0.001) and revision surgery (p=0.036). Multivariate regression analysis showed that: 1) patients who had liver disease were at significant risk of overall complication (p=0.001) and revision surgery (p=0.039); 2) Removal of hardware following fixation for a pilon had significantly increased risk for complication (p=0.012), but not revision surgery (p=0.43); and 3) Removal of hardware for pelvic fixation had a significantly increased risk for revision surgery (p=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Removal of hardware following fracture fixation is not a risk-free procedure. Patients with liver disease are at increased risk for complications, including increased risk for needing revision surgery following hardware removal. Patients having hardware removed following fixation for pilon fractures also are at increased risk for complication, although they may not require a return trip to the operating room. Finally, removal of pelvic hardware is associated with a higher return to the operating room.

A rare case of Candida parapsilosis osteomyelitis: a literature review and proposed treatment algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Candida parapsilosis is a rare opportunistic pathogen that can be found in immunosuppressed patients. There are seldom-reported cases of fungal osteomyelitis surrounding orthopedic implants. CASE PRESENTATION: This is a case of chronic Candida parapsilosis osteomyelitis in an immunocompromised patient with a prior open reduction and internal fixation for a closed bimalleolar ankle fracture that went on to neglected wound complications. The patient underwent series of treatments including removal of hardware, serial irrigation and debridements, negative pressure wound therapy, and intravenous antifungal therapy. Our case illustrates the possibility of this rare pathogen involved in orthopedic surgery particularly in immunocompromised hosts. CONCLUSION: Fungal and atypical pathogens should always be considered in such patients or if another diagnosis is not clear. Protracted time to culture specimens should be considered for at least four weeks in such situations. This article outlines a review of the literature and treatment algorithm to guide physicians when managing patients with this rare infection.

Technique Tip: The Use of Cannulated Drill as a Tamp to Remove Loose Cannulated Screws.

UNLABELLED: Subtalar arthrodesis is considered to be the gold standard surgical solution for end-stage subtalar joint arthrosis. Although subtalar joint fusion rates are high, nonunion has been reported to range from 0% to 43%. Revision subtalar arthrodesis regardless of etiology often requires removal of loose hardware in soft bone. The inability of screw threads to engage bone may result in longer operative time, frustration for the surgeon, and potential negative outcome for the patient. We describe a novel technique in which a cannulated drill bit is used as a tamp to remove subtalar arthrodesis screws. We have found this method to be efficient and safe and transferable to any extremity. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level V: Expert opinion.

Elective removal of implants after open reduction and internal fixation of Tibial Plateau fractures improves clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Tibial plateau fractures are common injuries often treated with open reduction and internal fixation. We have noted improved patient satisfaction following implant removal for these patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of removal of surgical implants after union on patient reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients at our Level 1 Trauma Center undergoing open reduction an internal fixation by the senior surgeon are offered enrollment into a prospective registry and have clinical outcomes recorded at follow-up [Knee Outcomes Survey (KOS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Short Form-36 Physical and Mental Component Summary (SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS), and Visual analog pain scale (VAS)]. Routinely, removal of surgical implants is offered after fracture union resulting in two cohorts: those who had undergone elective removal of surgical implants and those who had not. Outcome scores were compared before and after implant removal as well as between the two study populations at final follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were identified as having 12 month outcome scores: 36 (48%) had retained implants; 39 (52%) had implants removed. KOS and LEFS outcomes improved significantly after implant removal (p < 0.05). Clinical outcomes (KOS, SF-36 PCS) were also significantly better in patients who had implants removed compared to those that did not at final follow-up (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference seen in VAS pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that patients who have elective removal of their surgical implants after open reduction and internal fixation of a tibial plateau fracture have improved clinical outcomes after removal and also demonstrate significantly better outcomes than those who have retained implants at final follow-up. Patients who are unhappy with their clinical result should be counseled that removal of the implant may improve function, but may not improve pain.