Surgeons' beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants

Beate Hanson, Chris van der Werken, Dirk Stengel, Beate Hanson, Chris van der Werken, Dirk Stengel

Abstract

Background: The routine removal of orthopaedic fixation devices after fracture healing remains an issue of debate. There are no evidence-based guidelines on this matter, and little is known on surgeons' practice and perceived effectiveness of implant removal in different clinical settings.

Methods: A 41-item questionnaire was distributed to 730 attendees of the AO Principles and Masters Courses of Operative Fracture Treatment in Davos, Switzerland, to assess their attitudes towards removal of different types of implants, and perceived benefits and risks with this common procedure.

Results: The response rate was 655/730 (89.7%), representing 54.6% of all 1199 course attendees. Surgeons from 65 countries (571 males and 84 females, mean age 39 +/- SD 9 years) took part in the survey. Fifty-eight percent of the participants did not agree that routine implant removal is necessary, and 49% and 58% did not agree that indwelling implants pose an excess risk for fractures or general adverse effects. Forty-eight percent felt that removal is riskier than leaving the implant in situ. Implant removal in symptomatic patients was rated to be moderately effective (mean rating on a 10-point-scale, 5.8, 95% confidence interval 5.7-6.0). Eighty-five percent of all participants agreed that implant removal poses a burden to hospital resources. Surgeons were undetermined whether implant removal is adequately reimbursed by payers of health care services (44% "I-don't-know"-answers).

Conclusion: Many surgeons refuse a routine implant removal policy, and do not believe in clinically significant adverse effects of retained metal implants. Given the frequency of the procedure in orthopaedic departments worldwide, there is an urgent need for a large randomized trial to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of implant removal with regard to patient-centred outcomes.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Assigned removal priority to different types of implants. Mean ratings on 10-point scales with 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Main indications for implant removal. Mean ratings on 10-point scales with 95% confidence intervals.

References

    1. Bostman O, Pihlajamaki H. Routine implant removal after fracture surgery: a potentially reducible consumer of hospital resources in trauma units. J Trauma. 1996;41:846–849.
    1. Beaupre GS, Csongradi JJ. Refracture risk after plate removal in the forearm. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10:87–92. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199602000-00003.
    1. Davison BL. Refracture following plate removal in supracondylar-intercondylar femur fractures. Orthopedics. 2003;26:157–159.
    1. Langkamer VG, Ackroyd CE. Removal of forearm plates. A review of the complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:601–604.
    1. Sanderson PL, Ryan W, Turner PG. Complications of metalwork removal. Injury. 1992;23:29–30. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(92)90121-8.
    1. Gösling T, Hüfner T, Hankemeier S, Zelle BA, Müller-Heine A, Krettek C. Femoral nail removal should be restricted in asymptomatic patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004:222–226. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000130208.90879.67.
    1. Brown OL, Dirschl DR, Obremskey WT. Incidence of hardware-related pain and its effect on functional outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:271–274. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200105000-00006.
    1. Kahle WK. The case against routine metal removal. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14:229–237.
    1. Krischak GD, Gebhard F, Mohr W, Krivan V, Ignatius A, Beck A, Wachter NJ, Reuter P, Arand M, Kinzl L, Claes LE. Difference in metallic wear distribution released from commercially pure titanium compared with stainless steel plates. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:104–113. doi: 10.1007/s00402-003-0614-9.
    1. Serhan H, Slivka M, Albert T, Kwak SD. Is galvanic corrosion between titanium alloy and stainless steel spinal implants a clinical concern? Spine J. 2004;4:379–387. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2003.12.004.
    1. Kasai Y, Iida R, Uchida A. Metal concentrations in the serum and hair of patients with titanium alloy spinal implants. Spine. 2003;28:1320–1326. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200306150-00018.
    1. Loder RT, Feinberg JR. Orthopaedic implants in children: survey results regarding routine removal by the pediatric and nonpediatric specialists. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26:510–519.
    1. Mølster A, Behring J, Gjerdet NR, Ekeland A. Fjerning av osteosyntesemateriale. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002;122:2274–2276.
    1. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P, III, Hanson B, Weaver B, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. Surgeons' preferences for the operative treatment of fractures of the tibial shaft. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:1746–1752.
    1. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Tornetta P, III, Swiontkowski MF, Hanson B, Sprague S, Syed A, Schemitsch EH. Current practice in the intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures: an international survey. J Trauma. 2002;53:725–732.
    1. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Tornetta P, III, Swiontkowski MF, Berry DJ, Haidukewych G, Schemitsch EH, Hanson BP, Koval K, Dirschl D, Leece P, Keel M, Petrisor B, Heetveld M, Guyatt GH. Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2122–2130. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00535.
    1. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:200–206.
    1. Moore RM, Jr., Hamburger S, Jeng LL, Hamilton PM. Orthopedic implant devices: prevalence and sociodemographic findings from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey. J Appl Biomater. 1991;2:127–131. doi: 10.1002/jab.770020208.
    1. Cook SD, Renz EA, Barrack RL, Thomas KA, Harding AF, Haddad RJ, Jr., Milicic M. Clinical and metallurgical analysis of retrieved internal fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985:236–247.
    1. Evans NA, Evans RO. Playing with metal: fracture implants and contact sport. Br J Sports Med. 1997;31:319–321.
    1. Peterson HA. Metallic implant removal in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2005;25:107–115. doi: 10.1097/00004694-200501000-00024.
    1. Townend M, Parker P. Metalwork removal in potential army recruits. Evidence-based changes to entry criteria. J R Army Med Corps. 2005;151:2–4.
    1. Brown RM, Wheelwright EF, Chalmers J. Removal of metal implants after fracture surgery--indications and complications. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1993;38:96–100.
    1. Gösling T, Hüfner T, Hankemeier S, Müller U, Richter M, Krettek C. Indikation zur Entfernung von Tibiamarknägeln. Chirurg. 2005;76:789–794. doi: 10.1007/s00104-005-1027-9.
    1. Minkowitz RB, Bhadsavle S, Walsh M, Egol KA. Removal of painful orthopaedic implants after fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1906–1912. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01536.
    1. Evers B, Habelt R, Gerngross H. Indication, timing and complications of plate removal after forearm fractures: results of a metaanalysis including 635 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:289.
    1. Simanovsky N, Tair MA, Simanovsky N, Porat S. Removal of flexible titanium nails in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26:188–192.
    1. Vierhout BP, Sleeboom C, Aronson DC, Van Walsum AD, Zijp G, Heij HA. Long-term outcome of elastic stable intramedullary fixation (ESIF) of femoral fractures in children. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2006;16:432–437. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-924737.
    1. Trelle S. Accuracy of responses from postal surveys about continuing medical education and information behavior: experiences from a survey among German diabetologists. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2:15. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-2-15.
    1. Richards RH, Palmer JD, Clarke NM. Observations on removal of metal implants. Injury. 1992;23:25–28. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(92)90120-H.
    1. Jacobsen S, Honnens L, Jensen CM, Torholm C. Removal of internal fixation--the effect on patients' complaints: a study of 66 cases of removal of internal fixation after malleolar fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:170–171.
    1. CM CB, Gustilo T, Shaw AD. Knee pain after intramedullary tibial nailing: its incidence, etiology, and outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:103–105. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199702000-00006.
    1. Dodenhoff RM, Dainton JN, Hutchins PM. Proximal thigh pain after femoral nailing. Causes and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:738–741. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.79B5.7345.
    1. Keating JF, Orfaly R, O'Brien PJ. Knee pain after tibial nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:10–13. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199701000-00004.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj