High early post-operative complication rate after elective aseptic orthopedic implant removal of upper and lower limb

Patient satisfaction after elective implant removal of the lower extremity - a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The topic of elective implant removal (IR) in healed fractures of the lower extremity remains controversial, particularly when unspecific symptoms of discomfort, which cannot be quantified, are the primary indication. This study aims to assess indications and outcomes of elective IR of the lower extremity, focusing on unspecific symptoms of discomfort and patient satisfaction postoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single level I academic trauma center. We included patients who underwent elective IR for healed fractures of the ankle, foot, patella, and proximal tibia from 2016 to 2021. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 6 weeks after IR. Our outcomes of interest were patient satisfaction, complications, and alleviation of complaints.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were included in the study. Unspecific symptoms of discomfort were the most common reason for IR in all investigated anatomical regions of the lower extremity (47.9%), followed by pain (43.1%) and limited range of motion (4.2%). 4.8% of patients experienced a combination of pain and range of motion limitation. Among all patients, 47.9% reported subjective improvement after IR. IRs based on unspecific symptoms of discomfort were significantly less likely to show alleviation of complaints after IR (27.5%, OR 0.19, p ≤ 0.01). Patients who reported limited range of motion (OR 1.7, p = 0.41) or pain (OR 6.0, p = 0) were significantly more likely to be satisfied after IR. Patients who reported sensitivity to cold weather also showed a decrease of complaints after IR (OR 3.6, p = 0.03). Major complications occurred in 2.1% of cases. The minor complication rate was 8.4% (predominantly impaired wound healing). Smoking patients showed a significantly higher risk of complications after IR (OR 5.2, p = 0.006). Persistent pain postoperatively was detected in 14.7%.

CONCLUSION

When elective IR for consolidated fractures of the lower extremity is primarily motivated by patients' subjective symptoms of discomfort, the risk for postoperative dissatisfaction significantly increases. Objective symptoms on the other hand are associated with higher satisfaction after IR. While the procedure is generally safe, minor complications such as wound healing disorders can occur, especially in smokers. Patient education and well-documented informed consent are critical.

Burden of routine orthopedic implant removal a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation represent prevalent orthopedic procedures, sparking ongoing discourse over whether to retain or remove asymptomatic implants. Achieving consensus on this matter is paramount for orthopedic surgeons. This study aims to quantify the impact of routine implant removal on patients and healthcare facilities. A retrospective analysis of implant removal cases from 2016 to 2022 at King Fahad Hospital of the University (KFHU) was conducted and subjected to statistical scrutiny. Among these cases, 44% necessitated hospitalization exceeding one day, while 56% required only a single day. Adults exhibited a 55% need for extended hospital stays, contrasting with 22.8% among the pediatric cohort. The complication rate was 6%, with all patients experiencing at least one complication. Notably, 34.1% required sick leave and 4.8% exceeded 14 d. General anesthesia was predominant (88%). Routine implant removal introduces unwarranted complications, particularly in adults, potentially prolonging hospitalization. This procedure strains hospital resources, tying up the operating room that could otherwise accommodate critical surgeries. Clearly defined institutional guidelines are imperative to regulate this practice.

AIM

To measure the burden of routine implant removal on the patients and hospital.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis study of 167 routine implant removal cases treated at KFHU, a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected in the orthopedic department at KFHU from February 2016 to August 2022, which includes routine asymptomatic implant removal cases across all age categories. Nonroutine indications such as infection, pain, implant failure, malunion, nonunion, restricted range of motion, and prominent hardware were excluded. Patients who had external fixators removed or joints replaced were also excluded.

RESULTS

Between February 2016 and August 2022, 360 implants were retrieved; however, only 167 of those who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. The remaining implants were rejected due to exclusion criteria. Among the cases, 44% required more than one day in the hospital, whereas 56% required only one day. 55% of adults required more than one day of hospitalization, while 22.8% of pediatric patients required more than one day of inpatient care. The complication rate was 6%, with each patient experiencing at least one complication. Sick leave was required in 34.1% of cases, with 4.8% requiring more than 14 d. The most common type of anesthesia used in the surgeries was general anesthesia (88%), and the mean (SD) surgery duration was 77.1 (54.7) min.

CONCLUSION

Routine implant removal causes unnecessary complications, prolongs hospital stays, depletes resources and monopolizing operating rooms that could serve more critical procedures.

Healed ORIF in a fibula fracture - Hardware removal or hardware retention for the fibula in a patient with minor symptoms?

HISTORY

- A 31yo female is involved in a fall while climbing on some wet rocks. She was brought into the emergency department and was found to have suffered a closed fracture of the right fibula with a deltoid ligament injury. Distal neurovascular exam was normal. She is otherwise unhurt. She had ORIF of her ankle injury and it has gone onto heal with good results. She comes back at 6 months and complains of vague pain over her lateral ankle and hardware with a normal physical exam. She wonders about hardware removal, (Figs. 1 and 2). PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: - previous history of breast reduction surgery and she has delivered one child vaginally. No chronic diseases and she takes no pills except the birth control pill. SOCIAL HISTORY: - married with one child and works as an administrative assistant for a manufacturing company; she is a social drinker and nonsmoker. Has a history of using some recreational drugs but none for 10 years. She is moderately active.

Does performing total joint arthroplasty in the afternoon or evening increase the risk of prosthetic joint infection?

PURPOSE

Does performing total joint arthroplasty in the afternoon or evening increase the rate of early prosthetic joint infection and the likelihood of early prosthetic joint infection?

METHODS

We evaluated patients retrospectively, who underwent primary total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA) between January 2016 and December 2019, met the inclusion criteria and had at least 90 days of follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups. Group I consisted of patients whose surgeries had been started and finished before 14:00, and group II included patients whose surgeries started after 14:01. All patients were operated after non-septic cases in specific orthopedic operating rooms. Their demographic data and comorbidities were noted. Primary outcome was to compare the risk of PJI between the groups.

RESULTS

Group I and group II included 2309 and 1881 patients. Total number of patients with the diagnosis of PJI was 58 (1.4%). It was 31 (1.3%) and 27 (1.4%), respectively (p = 0.79). Performing total joint arthroplasty after 14:01 did not increase likelihood of infection (p = 0.83, OR 1.03). Among the parameters, PJI was significantly associated with age (p < 0.01, OR 0.99), smoking status (p < 0.01, OR 0.15) and operating time (p = 0.04, OR 0.99) in TKA and with direct anterior approach (p = 0.02, OR 4.72) in THA. Age (p = 0.06, OR 1.03) was the factor affecting the risk of subsequent PJI after total joint arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Performing total joint arthroplasty in the afternoon or in the evening, after aseptic cases does not increase the risk of subsequent of PJI.

Elective removal vs. retaining of hardware after osteosynthesis in asymptomatic patients-a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Osteosynthesis is the internal fixation of fractures or osteotomy by mechanical devices (also called hardware). After bone healing, there are two options: one is to remove the hardware, the other is to leave it in place. The removal of the hardware in patients without medical indication (elective) is controversially discussed. We performed a scoping review to identify evidence on the elective removal of hardware in asymptomatic patients compared to retaining of the hardware to check feasibility of performing a health technology assessment. In addition, we wanted to find out which type of evidence is available.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL (November 2019). We included studies comparing asymptomatic patients with an internal fixation in the lower or upper extremities whose internal fixation was electively (without medical indication) removed or retained. We did not restrict inclusion to any effectiveness/safety outcome and considered any comparative study design as eligible. Study selection and data extraction was performed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

We identified 13476 titles/abstracts. Of these, we obtained 115 full-text publications which were assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria. We included 13 studies (1 RCT, 4 cohort studies, 8 before-after studies) and identified two ongoing RCTs. Nine assessed the removal of the internal fixation in the lower extremities (six of these syndesmotic screws in ankle fractures only) and two in the upper extremities. One study analysed the effectiveness of hardware removal in children in all types of extremity fractures. Outcomes reported included various scales measuring functionality, pain and clinical assessments (e.g. range of motion) and health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 13 studies that evaluated the effectiveness/safety of hardware removal in the extremities. The follow up times were short, the patient groups small and the ways of measurement differed. In general, clinical heterogeneity was high. Evidence on selected topics, e.g. syndesmotic screw removal is available nevertheless not sufficient to allow a meaningful assessment of effectiveness.

Complications of hardware removal in pediatric upper limb surgery: A retrospective single-center study of 317 patients

Previous studies indicated that hardware removal may lead to increased morbidity and therefore, at least in adults, remains questionable for certain indications. However, risks such as corrosion or local reactions may be less likely in younger patients with current, improved hardware materials. We sought to retrospectively determine complication rates of hardware removal in pediatric upper limb surgery, and establish potential risk factors for increased morbidity.All children and adolescents who underwent inpatient hardware removal under anesthesia after previous upper limb surgery between 2002 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. The following details were extracted at the latest follow-up: demographics, implant location, hardware material, duration of surgery, duration of hardware in situ, and any complications graded according to Goslings et al (grade 0-5) and Sink et al (grade 1-5), respectively. Correlations were calculated to establish potential relationships between specific outcome parameters (e.g., location, duration of surgery etc.) and complication grades.A total of 2089 children were evaluated of whom 317 patients with 449 interventions (mean age 9.4 years) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, 203 K-wires (46%), 97 plates (22%), 102 external fixators (23%), 32 intramedullary nails (7%), 6 screws (1%), 4 cerclages (1%) and 1 pin (0.2%) were removed; most common locations were the forearm (34%) and humerus (24%). The mean duration of surgery was 40 minutes (± 50.9), mean time in situ was 194 days (± 319.6). Complication rates were low overall, with most being grade 0 (n = 372; 83%) or 1 (n = 60; 13%) according to Goslings et al and grade 1 (n = 386; 86%) and 2 (n = 42; 9%) according to Sink et al. No severe complications were observed. The following predictors were related to the severity of the complications in linear regression analysis: more distal localizations, external fixators, longer duration of surgery and female sex.Hardware removal under anesthesia in the pediatric upper extremity has produced a low complication rate with no severe complications and can thus be considered to be safe. Increased morbidity occurred in more distal localizations, external fixators, longer surgeries and females.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, Level IV.