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
Multicenter Study
. 2012 Aug 15:13:147.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-147.

Clinical outcome of implant removal after fracture healing. Design of a prospective multicentre clinical cohort study

Dagmar I Vos  1 , Michael H J Verhofstad, Beate Hanson, Yolanda van der Graaf, Chris van der Werken
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Clinical outcome of implant removal after fracture healing. Design of a prospective multicentre clinical cohort study

Dagmar I Vos et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: The clinical results of removal of metal implants after fracture healing are unknown and the question whether to remove or to leave them in is part of discussion worldwide. We present the design of a prospective clinical multicentre cohort study to determine the main indications for and expectations of implant removal, the influence on complaints, the incidence of surgery related complications and the socio-economic consequences of implant removal.

Methods/design: In a prospective multicentre clinical cohort study at least 200 patients with a healed fracture after osteosynthesis with a metal implant are included for analyzing the outcome after removal. Six hospitals in the Netherlands are participating. Special questionnaires are designed. The follow up after surgery will be at least six months. The primary endpoint is the incidence of surgery related complications. Secondary endpoints are the influence of removal on preoperative symptoms and complaints and the socio-economic consequences.

Discussion: By performing this study we hope to find profound arguments to remove or not to remove metal implants after fracture healing that can help to develop clear guidelines for daily practice.

Trial registration: NTR1297, http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1297.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bae JH, Oh JK, Oh CW, Hur CR. Technical difficulties of removal of locking screw after locking compression plating. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(1):91–95. doi: 10.1007/s00402-008-0769-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Minkowitz RB, Bhadsavle S, Walsh M, Egol KA. Removal of painful orthopaedic implants after fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(9):1906–1912. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01536. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Richards RH, Palmer JD, Clarke NM. Observations on removal of metal implants. Injury. 1992;23(1):25–28. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(92)90120-H. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Amadio C. Am J Ind Med. 1996. pp. 602–608. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dowrick AS, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, Cameron PA. Does the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scoring system only measure disability due to injuries to the upper limb? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(4):524–527. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B4.17223. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms