Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 May 24:9:73.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-73.

Surgeons' beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants

Beate Hanson  1 , Chris van der Werken, Dirk Stengel
Affiliations

Surgeons' beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants

Beate Hanson et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

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.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

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. - PubMed
    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. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davison BL. Refracture following plate removal in supracondylar-intercondylar femur fractures. Orthopedics. 2003;26:157–159. - PubMed
    1. Langkamer VG, Ackroyd CE. Removal of forearm plates. A review of the complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:601–604. - PubMed
    1. Sanderson PL, Ryan W, Turner PG. Complications of metalwork removal. Injury. 1992;23:29–30. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(92)90121-8. - DOI - PubMed