SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 4

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDICATION AND COMPLICATION OF IMPLANT REMOVAL

İMPLANT ÇIKARIMINDA ENDİKASYON VE KOMPLİKASYON İLİŞKİSİ

Hanifi Üçpunar
Seçkin Özcan
Hakan Sofu
İsmet Yalkın Çamurcu
Serda Duman
Mehmet Nuri Konya
Pages
131–134
Publication Date
2018-10-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall complication rate was 17%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between indications and complications of implant removal surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients who underwent implant removal surgery between 2011 and 2014 were evaluated from our medical records.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall complication rate was 17%.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İmplantlar · Komplikasyon · Kırıklar

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between indications and complications of implant removal surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients who underwent implant removal surgery between 2011 and 2014 were evaluated from our medical records. Patients’ age, gender, anatomical site of implant and the type of the implant were evaluated. The interval between the fracture treatment and implant removal were recorded for all patients. The indications for implant removal surgery were analyzed and their relationships with complications were evaluated by Pearson Chi-Square test. RESULTS: 276 patients (116 female, 160 male) with the mean age of 36.2 ± 18.4 (range, 5 to 79 years) years underwent removal of 279 implants. The mean interval from initial operation to implant removal operation 27.9 ± 33 months (range, 0.25 to 240 months). The most common anatomical sites of implants were tibia in 93 patients (33.6 %), femur in 63 patients (22.8 %) and fibula in 39 patients (14.1 %). Implant removal was indicated for implant failure in 54 patients (20%), for deep infection in 21 patients (8%), for implant irritation in 167 patients (60%), for pseudoarthrosis in 9 patients (3%), for only patient’s demand in 44 patients (16%) and for only surgeon’s demand in 40 patients (14%). Overall complication rate was 17%. There was a significant correlation between the implant removal due to infection and postoperative refracture and infection (r=0.101 p<0.001 and r=0.273 p<0.001, respectively). Significant correlation was obtained between implant removal due to implant failure and pseudoarthrosis and the need of new implant as expected (r=0.375 p<0.001 and r=0.639 p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Complications related to implant removal surgery has a relationship with implant removal indications such as infection, pseudoarthrosis, and implant failure.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı, implant çıkarımı cerrahisinin

🔖

Cite This Article

Üçpunar, H. (2018). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDICATION AND COMPLICATION OF IMPLANT REMOVAL. Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 4, 131–134. https://doi.org/10.18229/kocatepetip.474990

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Vos DI, Verhofstad MH. Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2013;39(4):327-37.
  2. Haseeb M, Butt MF, Altaf T, Muzaffar K, Gupta A, Jallu A. Indications of implant removal: A study of 83 cases. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2017;11(1):1-7.
  3. Kovar FM, Strasser E, Jaindl M, Endler G, Oberleitner G. Complications following implant removal in patients with proximal femur fractures – an observational study over 16 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015;101(7):785-9.
  4. Hanson B, van der Werken C, Stengel D. Surgeons' beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:73.
  5. Reith G, Schmitz-Greven V, Hensel KO, Schneider MM, Tinschmann T, Bouillon B, Probst C. Metal implant removal: benefits and drawbacks--a patient survey. BMC Surg 2015;15:96.
  6. Minkowitz RB, Bhadsavle S, Walsh M, Egol KA. Removal of painful orthopaedic implants after fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89(9):1906-12.
  7. Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;14(2):113-20.
  8. Shrestha R, Shrestha D, Dhoju D, Parajuli N, Bhandari B, Kayastha SR. Epidemiological and outcome analysis of orthopedic implants removal in Kathmandu University Hospital. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2013;11(42):139-43.
  9. Sanderson PL, Ryan W, Turner PG. Complications of metalwork removal. Injury 1992;23(1):29-30.