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

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDICATION AND COMPLICATION OF IMPLANT REMOVAL

İMPLANT ÇIKARIMINDA ENDİKASYON VE KOMPLİKASYON İLİŞKİSİ

Pages
131–134
DOI
—
🏛️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%.There was a significant correlation between the implantremoval due to infection and postoperative refractureand infection (r=0.101 p<0.001 and r=0.273 p<0.001, respectively).Significant correlation was obtained betweenimplant removal due to implant failure and pseudoarthrosisand the need of new implant as expected (r=0.375p<0.001 and r=0.639 p<0.001, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: Complications related to implantremoval surgery has a relationship with implant removalindications such as infection, pseudoarthrosis, andimplant failure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was toevaluate the relationship between indications andcomplications of implant removal surgery.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients whounderwent implant removal surgery between 2011 and2014 were evaluated from our medical records.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The indications for implant removal surgerywere analyzed and their relationships with complicationswere evaluated by Pearson Chi-Square test.RESULTS: 276 patients (116 female, 160 male) with themean age of 36.2 ± 18.4 (range, 5 to 79 years) years underwentremoval of 279 implants.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall complication rate was 17%.There was a significant correlation between the implantremoval due to infection and postoperative refractureand infection (r=0.101 p<0.001 and r=0.273 p<0.001, respectively).Significant correlation was obtained betweenimplant removal due to implant failure and pseudoarthrosisand the need of new implant as expected (r=0.375p<0.001 and r=0.639 p<0.001, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: Complications related to implantremoval surgery has a relationship with implant removalindications such as infection, pseudoarthrosis, andimplant failure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İmplantlar · Komplikasyon · Kırıklar

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was toevaluate the relationship between indications andcomplications of implant removal surgery.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients whounderwent implant removal surgery between 2011 and2014 were evaluated from our medical records. Patients’age, gender, anatomical site of implant and the type ofthe implant were evaluated. The interval between thefracture treatment and implant removal were recorded forall patients. The indications for implant removal surgerywere analyzed and their relationships with complicationswere evaluated by Pearson Chi-Square test.RESULTS: 276 patients (116 female, 160 male) with themean age of 36.2 ± 18.4 (range, 5 to 79 years) years underwentremoval of 279 implants. The mean interval frominitial operation to implant removal operation 27.9 ± 33months (range, 0.25 to 240 months). The most commonanatomical 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 failurein 54 patients (20%), for deep infection in 21 patients(8%), for implant irritation in 167 patients (60%), for pseudoarthrosisin 9 patients (3%), for only patient’s demandin 44 patients (16%) and for only surgeon’s demand in40 patients (14%). Overall complication rate was 17%.There was a significant correlation between the implantremoval due to infection and postoperative refractureand infection (r=0.101 p<0.001 and r=0.273 p<0.001, respectively).Significant correlation was obtained betweenimplant removal due to implant failure and pseudoarthrosisand the need of new implant as expected (r=0.375p<0.001 and r=0.639 p<0.001, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: Complications related to implantremoval surgery has a relationship with implant removalindications such as infection, pseudoarthrosis, andimplant failure.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı, implant çıkarımı cerrahisinin

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜÇPUNAR, H., ÖZCAN, S., SOFU, H., ÇAMURCU, İ. Y., DUMAN, S., KONYA, M. N. (2018). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDICATION AND COMPLICATION OF IMPLANT REMOVAL. Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4, 131–134. https://ajindex.com/articles/201205

📄 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.