Literature DB >> 16467186

Hardware removal: indications and expectations.

Matthew L Busam1, Robert J Esther, William T Obremskey.   

Abstract

Although hardware removal is commonly done, it should not be considered a routine procedure. The decision to remove hardware has significant economic implications, including the costs of the procedure as well as possible work time lost for postoperative recovery. The clinical indications for implant removal are not well established. There are few definitive data to guide whether implant removal is appropriate. Implant removal may be challenging and lead to complications, such as neurovascular injury, refracture, or recurrence of deformity. When implants are removed for pain relief alone, the results are unpredictable and depend on both the implant type and its anatomic location. Current literature does not support the routine removal of implants to protect against allergy, carcinogenesis, or metal detection. Surgeons and patients should be aware of appropriate indications and have realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of implant removal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16467186     DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200602000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg        ISSN: 1067-151X            Impact factor:   3.020


  61 in total

Review 1.  Clinical application of locked plating system in children. An orthopaedic view.

Authors:  Juan Pretell-Mazzini; Jose Alberto Zafra-Jimenez; Juan Rodriguez Martin
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-02-17       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Inpatient orthopaedic hardware removal in children: A cross-Sectional study.

Authors:  Alexandre Boulos; Steven F DeFroda; Justin E Kleiner; Nathan Thomas; Joseph A Gil; Aristides I Cruz
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-07-01

3.  Use of high-speed burr and water-based lubricant in the partial removal of surgical plates: A technique Guide.

Authors:  Jon E Hammarstedt; Grigory E Gershkovich; Daniel P Mass
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-05-24

4.  Cemented total hip arthroplasty with retention of some existing hardware.

Authors:  Fernando Monteiro Judas; Joana Bento Rodrigues; Francisco Manuel Lucas; João Paulo Freitas
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2014-07-02

Review 5.  [Implant removal after intramedullary osteosyntheses. Literature review, technical details, and tips and tricks].

Authors:  C Krettek; P Mommsen
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 6.  [Refracture of long bones after implant removal. An avoidable complication?].

Authors:  B G Ochs; C E Gonser; H C Baron; U Stöckle; A Badke; F M Stuby
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.000

7.  Comparison of magnesium versus titanium screw fixation for biplane chevron medial malleolar osteotomy in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus.

Authors:  Baver Acar; Ozkan Kose; Melih Unal; Adil Turan; Yusuf Alper Kati; Ferhat Guler
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-08-02

8.  Hardware removal after tibial fracture has healed.

Authors:  Adam Sidky; Richard E Buckley
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Effectiveness of orthopedic implant removal surgery in patients with no implant-related symptoms after fracture union of isolated lower extremity shaft fractures: patient-centered evaluation.

Authors:  Sangbong Ko; Jaejun Lee; Junho Nam
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Treatment of distal tibial shaft fractures by three different surgical methods: a randomized, prospective study.

Authors:  Yongchuan Li; Xi Jiang; Qinghe Guo; Lei Zhu; Tianwen Ye; Aimin Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.