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

Epidemiology of complications after non-compulsory planned hardware-removal after limbs fracture

INTRODUCTION

Removal of hardware (HR) following a fracture is a frequent question from patients. The incidence of this kind of intervention remains very variable depending on the healthcare systems and its interest is debated in view of the benefits and associated risks that remain poorly defined. Mandatory preoperative information cannot be given optimally in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of complications (major and minor) after non-compulsory planned hardware-removal following a limb fracture.

HYPOTHESIS

The rate of major complications was greater than 1%.

METHODS

A 10-year retrospective single-center study included 1990 patients who had undergone routine HR. Analysis of medical records, with a minimum of one year of follow-up, allowed us to collect: patient data, the type and anatomical location of the osteosynthesis material, as well as the occurrence of a postoperative complication, categorized as a major complication (resulting in either a new surgical procedure, re-hospitalization, or lasting functional impairment) or a minor complication.

RESULTS

Overall, 4.1% (79/1990) of patients experienced postoperative complications, including 1.56% (31/1990) major complications and 21 surgical revisions (1.06%). The time to onset of complications was 9.1 +/- 8.4 days. The most common complications were deep infections and impaired skin healing with superficial infection (55/79, 69.6%). Locations "around the knee" and "around the ankle" were at higher risk of complications (p < 0.01). Smoking was identified as a significant risk factor for complications, particularly deep infection (p = 0.004, OR = 8.7 [1.98; 38.11]).

DISCUSSION

Non-mandatory routine RH has a significant complication rate even in a healthy population. Preoperative information of the patient and the assessment of the benefit/risk balance are essential in this indication. This study also raises the question of mandatory smoking cessation preoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

Is fracture management merely a physical process? Exploring the psychological effects of internal and external fixation

BACKGROUND

Internal and external fixation are common surgical procedures for treating fractures. However, the impact of different surgical approaches (including internal and external fixations) on patients' psychological status and Quality of Life (QoL) is rarely examined. Herein, we aimed to investigate the effects of internal and external fixation on anxiety, depression, insomnia, and overall mental and physical health in Distal Radius Fractures (DRF) patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on 96 fracture patients who underwent internal fixation (57 patients) or external fixation (39 patients). The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire were used to assess the patients' pain, anxiety, depression, sleep, and QoL before surgery and at seven days, one month, and three months post-surgery.

RESULTS

The VAS scores were significantly lower in the Internal Fixation Group (IFG) than in the External Fixation Group (EFG) on the seventh day and one month postoperatively (P < 0.05). Although both groups showed no significant anxiety, depression, or insomnia before surgery (P > 0.05), the EFG showed significantly higher HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores than the IFG at seven days and one and three months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Additionally, changes in HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores were most significant at day seven post-surgery in the EFG (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the average Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores before surgery (P > 0.05). However, both groups showed positive changes in PCS and MCS scores at postoperative day seven and one and three months postoperatively, with the IFG having significantly higher average PCS and MCS scores compared to the EFG (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to external fixation, internal fixation did not significantly impact patients' emotions regarding anxiety and depression in the early postoperative period, and physical and mental health recovery was better during the postoperative rehabilitation period. Furthermore, when there are no absolute indications, the impact on patients' psychological well-being should be considered as one of the key factors in the treatment plan during surgical approach selection.

Effectiveness of permissive weight bearing in surgically treated trauma patients with peri- and intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities: a prospective comparative multicenter cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of a novel approach involving permissive weight bearing (PWB) in surgically treated trauma patients with peri- and intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities.

METHODS

Prospective comparative multicenter cohort study in one level 1 trauma center and five level 2 trauma centers. Surgically treated trauma patients with peri- and intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities were included. Permissive weight bearing (PWB) in comparison to restricted weight bearing (RWB) was assessed over a 26-week post-surgery follow-up period. Patients' self-perceived outcome levels regarding activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (QoL), pain and weight bearing compliance were used.

RESULTS

This study included 106 trauma patients (N = 53 in both the PWB and RWB groups). Significantly better ADL and QoL were found in the PWB group compared to the RWB group at 2-, 6-, 12- and 26-weeks post-surgery. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rates between the PWB and RWB groups.

CONCLUSION

PWB is effective and is associated with a significantly reduced time to full weight bearing, and a significantly better outcome regarding ADL and QoL compared to patients who followed RWB regimen. Moreover, no significant differences in complication rates were found between the PWB and RWB groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR6077). Date of registration: 01-09-2016.

Predictors of Hardware Removal in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients Undergoing Syndesmotic Ankle Fixation With Screws

Background

Indications for removal of syndesmotic screws are not fully elucidated. This study aimed to determine factors related to elective syndesmotic screw removal.

Methods

Patients who underwent fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries were included. Screw removal was offered after a minimum of 12 weeks after surgery for pain, stiffness or patient desire to remove painful or broken hardware. Patient demographics, surgical data, distance of the syndesmotic screw from the joint, location of the screw at the physeal scar, and number of syndesmotic screws placed were collected for all patients. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the relationship between patient characteristics and screw removal and independent predictors of hardware removal.

Results

Of 160 patients, 60 patients (38%) with an average age of 36.1 (range: 18-84) years underwent elective syndesmotic screw removal at a mean of 7 (range, 3-47) months after initial fixation. The most common reason for screw removal (50/60 patients) was ankle stiffness and pain (83%). Patients who underwent screw removal were more likely to be younger (36.1 years ± 13.0 vs 46.6 years ± 18.2, P < .001) and have a lower ASA score (2 ± 0.8 vs 2.1 ± 0.7, P = .003) by bivariate analysis. Of patients who underwent screw removal, 21.7% (13/60) had a broken screw at the time of removal. Whether the screw was placed at the physeal scar was not significantly associated with patient decision for hardware removal (P = .80).

Conclusion

Younger and healthier patients were more likely to undergo elective removal of syndesmotic hardware. Screw distance from joint and screw placement at the physeal scar were not significantly associated with hardware removal.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Does iliosacral screw removal reduce postoperative pain in unstable pelvic fracture patients? A matched prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To compare pain and function in patients with unstable posterior pelvic fractures stabilized with posterior fixation who undergo iliosacral screw removal versus those who retain their iliosacral screws.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study identified 59 patients who reported pain at least 4 months after iliosacral screw fixation of an unstable posterior pelvic ring fracture from 2015-2019. The primary intervention was iliosacral screw removal versus a matched iliosacral screw retention control group. Patient-reported pain was measured with the 10-point Brief Pain Inventory, and patient-reported function was measured with the Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score. Both measured within 6 months of the intervention.

RESULTS

Before iliosacral screw removal, the mean pain was 4.7 (SD, 3.0) compared with 4.7 (SD, 3.0) in the matched control group. Following iliosacral screw removal, the average pain in the screw removal group was 3.7 (SD, 2.7) and 3.3 (SD, 2.5) in the matched control group. We found no evidence that iliosacral screw removal reduced pain in this population (mean difference, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 1.5; p = 0.71). In addition, the improvement in function after iliosacral screw removal was not statistically indistinguishable from zero (mean difference, 3.1 points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 10.9; p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that iliosacral screw removal offers no significant pelvic pain or function benefit when compared with a matched control group. Surgeons should consider these data when managing patients with pelvic pain who are candidates for iliosacral screw removal.

The economic burden of the postoperative management in surgically treated trauma patients with peri- and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities: A prospective multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the economic burden expressed in costs and quality of life of the post-surgical treatment of peri‑ and/or intra-articular fractures in the lower extremity from a societal perspective.

DESIGN

This is a quantitative study as it aims to find averages and generalize results to wider populations. The design is a cost-of-illness and quality of life study focusing on costs (in euros), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Quality of Life (Qol) in patients with peri‑ and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities.

SETTING

Surgically treated trauma patients with peri‑ and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities during 26 weeks follow-up. Patients were included from 4 hospitals in the Netherlands.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs, ADL and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY).

METHODS

Cost of illness was estimated through a bottom-up method. The Dutch Eq-5D-5 L questionnaire was used to calculate utilities while Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) scores were used as a measure of ADL. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to test for statistical differences in costs. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine the influence of work status and further sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Total average societal costs were € 9836.96 over six months. Unexpectedly, total societal and healthcare costs were lower for patients with a paid job relative to patients without. Sensitivity analyses showed that our choice of a societal perspective and the EuroQol as our primary utility measurement tool had a significant effect on the outcomes. The ADL at baseline was respectively; 10.4 and at 26 weeks post-surgery treatment 49.5. The QoL was at baseline respectively; 0.3 and at 26 weeks post-surgery treatment 0.7. These findings are indicative of a significantly improved ADL and QoL (p ≤ 0.05) over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveal a substantial economic burden in monetary terms and effect on QoL of patients with peri‑ and/or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities during 26 weeks follow-up.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR6077). Date of registration: 01-09-2016.

Can We Predict the Need for Unplanned Reoperation After Nonunion Repair?

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors associated with the need for reoperations in patients treated surgically for fracture nonunion.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

One urban Level 1 trauma center and an orthopaedic specialty hospital.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

This study included 365 patients who did not and 95 patients who did undergo a reoperation after nonunion repair.

INTERVENTION

All patients who underwent fracture nonunion repair were identified. Baseline demographic, injury, and surgical information were collected. These factors were compared between patients who did and did not require an unplanned reoperation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

An unplanned reoperation after index fracture nonunion surgery.

RESULTS

When compared with patients who did not undergo a reoperation after their index fracture nonunion surgery, patients who underwent at least 1 reoperation had a greater proportion of those who sustained an open fracture, a high-energy injury, initial neurologic or vascular injuries, the need for a flap or soft tissue graft at initial treatment, and lower extremity injuries with univariate analysis. Unplanned reoperation was also associated with diagnosis of "infected" nonunion at initial nonunion surgery. Multivariate analysis confirmed initial nerve or vascular injuries and positive infection status were statistically significant predictors of a reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial injury characteristics such as nerve or vascular injury at initial injury and positive infection status at the index nonunion surgery were associated with the need for a secondary surgery after nonunion repair. Appropriate care of these patients should be aimed at adjusting expectations of unplanned reoperation in the future and potentially enhanced treatment strategies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Implant removal of osteosynthesis. Results of a survey among Spanish orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The indications on extraction of osteosynthesis material are not well defined in the current literature deriving in relative indications, depending on experiences, customs or patient's request. The aim of this article is to assess the beliefs, indications, usual practice and perceived complications of surgeons in Spain regarding on extraction of osteosynthesis material.

METHODS

We conducted a questionnaire of 44 questions covering general demographics, general and subjective opinion on implant removal, specific attitudes by implant type and anatomical location, and personal habits.

RESULTS

164 questionnaires were received. The most frequent indications are patellar and olecranon cerclage wires and elastic nails in children. 56% remove the implant at the patient's request, 31% always remove it in children, 28% do it in asymptomatic patients to avoid possible surgical problems, 14% to avoid a possible peri-implant fracture and 9% by simple preference. The most frequent intraoperative complications are surgery longer than expected, bone growth over the implant, rounded screw head core, cold fusion, difficulty in finding the implant and impossibility to remove part of the implant. The most frequent postoperative complication was persistence of symptoms 39.8%.

CONCLUSION

The results provide information to advise the patient regarding the expected clinical outcome and intra and postoperative complications. The surgeon should cautiously indicate extraction in the asymptomatic patient given the high rate of complications.

Low profile fragment specific plate fixation of lateral tibial plateau fractures - A technical note

PURPOSE

Precontoured plates used to stabilize lateral tibial plateau (LTP) fractures are limited in their ability to raft particular areas of the reconstructed articular surface. These implants also do not fit every individual's bony anatomy and can lead to soft tissue irritation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate fragment specific plate fixation of LTP fractures using generic small and mini fragment constructs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series of LTP fractures treated with small fragment tubular and/or mini fragment plate constructs at a single Level I trauma center. Postoperative complications were recorded. Final radiographs were analyzed to determine union and interval subsidence of the articular surface and/or loss of reduction.

RESULTS

All 19 LTP fractures healed without loss of reduction or implant failure. There was minimal interval subsidence of the LTP in all patients. There were no complications or reoperations for symptomatic implant removal within the given follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Fragment specific fixation of LTP fractures using small and mini fragment plates creates a lower profile construct that reliably maintains fracture reduction to union.

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.

Predictors of Symptomatic Implant Removal After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

A retrospective case-control study was conducted at a level I trauma center to assess whether radiographic details of tibial plateau fixation can predict symptomatic implant removal. Nine hundred fifty-one tibial plateau fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation from 2007 to 2016. Eighty-two (9%) were treated with implant removal for localized pain over the implant. A control group was selected from the remaining patients using cumulative sampling. Records and radiographs were reviewed for predictors hypothesized to be associated with implant removal. Based on the authors' multivariable model, implant removal was associated with each additional protruding screw (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.55; P<.001), bicondylar fractures (adjusted odds ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-4.11; P=.02), and lower body mass index (P=.05). Associations that approached significance were observed with decreased age (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 per 10 years; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01; P=.06) and closed fractures (adjusted odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-1.19; P=.09). The model discriminated fractures requiring implant removal with moderate accuracy (area under the curve=0.71). Each additional screw that radiographically protrudes beyond the far cortex increases the odds of symptomatic implant removal by 32%. Bicondylar fractures and lower body mass index are also associated with symptomatic implant removal. These findings might help inform patients and guide fixation techniques to reduce the likelihood of symptomatic implant removal. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(3):161-167.].

Functional outcome of implant removal following fracture fixation below the level of the knee: a prospective cohort study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome in patients undergoing implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation below the level of the knee.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All adult patients (18 to 75 years) undergoing IR after fracture fixation below the level of the knee between November 2014 and September 2016 were included as part of the WIFI (Wound Infections Following Implant Removal Below the Knee) trial, performed in 17 teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in The Netherlands. In this multicentre prospective cohort, the primary outcome was the difference in functional status before and after IR, measured by the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), with a minimal clinically important difference of nine points.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients were included with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range (IQR) 37 to 60), of whom 71 patients (39.7%) were male. With a median score of 60 before IR (IQR 45 to 72) and 66 after IR (IQR 51 to 76) on the LEFS, there was a statistically significant improvement in functional outcome (p < 0 .001). A total of 31 surgical site infections (17.3%) occurred.

CONCLUSION

Although IR led to a statistically significant improvement of functional outcome, the minimal clinically important difference was not reached. In conclusion, this study shows that IR does not result in a clinically relevant improvement in functional outcome. These results, in combination with the high complication rate, highlight the importance of carefully reviewing the indication for IR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:447-453.

Functional outcomes after removal of hardware in patellar fracture: are we helping our patients?

PURPOSE

Functional outcomes after Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) of the patella are variable. Common complications of patella ORIF include persistent anterior knee pain, limited range of motion and symptomatic hardware. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if removal of hardware is beneficial to symptomatic patients after patellar fracture fixation.

METHODS

Patients who presented to our institution between December 2006 and November 2014 with patella fractures treated with ORIF were eligible for inclusion. Patella ORIF was performed using (1) K-wires (KW) with a tension band construct or (2) Cannulated Screws (CS) with a tension band construct. Radiological analyses included (1) AO classification and (2) measurements of prominent hardware length. Patient medical charts were reviewed for demographic and intraoperative data as well as peri/postoperative complications. All patients completed the SF-12 score, visual analog scale, Kujala score, Lysholm score and questionaries' regarding return to previous activity levels.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria. The average time from fracture fixation to removal of hardware was 15.8 (SD ± 14.9) months. The mean follow-up was 43.1 (SD ± 27.1) months. Patella fixation was accomplished using tension band constructs with KW in 28 patients (59.5%) or with CS in 19 patients (40.5%). Patient reported quality of life and pain outcomes improved significantly after removal of hardware (p = 0.001, and p = 0.002 respectively). Functional outcome scores (Kujala and Lysholm) did not improve significantly after hardware removal in the KW or CS groups. Significantly more patients in the KW group returned to pre-injury activity (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Hardware removal after patella ORIF significantly improves patient reported pain and quality of life outcomes but not functional outcomes. Patients should be counseled regarding the expected outcome of hardware removal following patella ORIF and diabetic patients should be given special consideration before undergoing this procedure.

Permissive weight bearing in trauma patients with fracture of the lower extremities: prospective multicenter comparative cohort study

Background

The standard aftercare treatment in surgically treated trauma patients with fractures around or in a joint, known as (peri)- or intra-articular fractures of the lower extremities, is either non-weight bearing or partial weight bearing. We have developed an early permissive weight bearing post-surgery rehabilitation protocol in surgically treated patients with fractures of the lower extremities. In this proposal we want to compare our early permissive weight bearing protocol to the existing current non-weight bearing guidelines in a prospective comparative cohort study.

Methods/design

The study is a prospective multicenter comparative cohort study in which two rehabilitation aftercare treatments will be contrasted, i.e. permissive weight bearing and non-weight bearing according to the AO-guideline. The study population consists of patients with a surgically treated fracture of the pelvis/acetabulum or a surgically treated (peri)- or intra-articular fracture of the lower extremities. The inclusion period is 12 months. The duration of follow up is 6 months, with measurements taken at baseline, 2,6,12 and 26 weeks post-surgery.

Primary outcome measure: ADL with Lower Extremity Functional Scale. Outcome variables for compliance, as measured with an insole pressure measurement system, encompass peak load and step duration.

Discussion

This study will investigate the (cost-) effectiveness of a permissive weight bearing aftercare protocol. The results will provide evidence whether a permissive weight bearing protocol is more effective than the current non-weight bearing protocol.

Trial registration

The study is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR6077). Date of registration: 01–09-2016.

The Role of Implant Removal in Orthopedic Trauma

Although implant removal is common after orthopedic trauma, indications for removal remain controversial. There are few data in the literature to allow evidence-based decision-making. The risk of complications from implant removal must be weighed against the possible benefits and the likelihood of improving the patient's symptoms.

Staged reconstruction of diaphyseal fractures with segmental defects: Surgical and patient-reported outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage limb reconstruction is an option for patients with critical size segmental bone defects following acute trauma or non-union. Reconstruction is technically demanding and associated with a high complication rate. Current protocols for limb reconstruction have well-documented challenges, and no study has reported on patient outcomes using a validated questionnaire. In this study, we aimed to examine the clinical and patient-centered outcomes following our surgical protocol for two-stage limb reconstruction following critical size segmental defects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single surgeon performed reconstruction of long bone defects using antibiotic impregnated cement spacers and intramedullary cancellous bone autograft. A retrospective chart review was performed. Three reviewers independently measured time to union based on radiographs. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) survey was administered to patients after most recent follow-up.

RESULTS

Ten limbs representing nine patients were included. All patients sustained a lower extremity injury, and one patient had bilateral lower extremity injuries. Average clinical follow-up was 18.3 months (range 7-33) from final surgical intervention, and follow-up to questionnaire administration was 28 months (range 24-37). The mean time between stages was 3.1 months. Average time to unrestricted weight-bearing was 7.9 months from Stage 1 (range 3.4-15.9) and 4.5 months from Stage 2 (range 1.1-11.6). Average time to full union was 16.7 months from Stage 1 (range 6.4-28.6) and 13.5 months from Stage 2 (range 1.8-27). Eight patients (nine limbs) participated in the LEFS survey, the average score was 53.1 (range 30-67), equating to 66% of full functionality (range 38%-84%). Complications included 5 infections, 3 non-unions, and one amputation. There was a moderate positive correlation between infection at any time point and non-union (R=0.65, p=0.03).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes in this small patient cohort were good despite risks of complication. There is an association between infection and non-union. Further studies addressing clinical and functional outcomes will help to guide expectations for future surgeons and patients.