Is Elective Implant Removal after Fracture Healing Beneficial? - A Prospective Cohort Study

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.

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.