Complications during removal of conventional versus locked compression plates: is there a difference?

Refracture after plate removal of midshaft clavicle fractures after bone union-incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

There is a great debate on the routine use of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for midshaft clavicle fractures, and one concern is the adverse events after ORIF, such as implant removal after bone union. In this retrospective study, we assessed the incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of refracture after plate removal of midshaft clavicle fractures after bone union.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three hundred fifty-two patients diagnosed with acute midshaft clavicle fractures who had complete medical records from primary fractures to refracture were recruited. Details of imaging materials and clinical characteristics were carefully reviewed and analysed.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of refracture was 6.5% (23/352), and the average interval from implant removal to refracture was 25.6 days. Multivariate analysis showed that the risk factors were Robinson type-2B2 and fair/poor reduction. Females were 2.4 times more likely to have refracture, although it was not significant in multivariate analysis (p = 0.134). Postmenopausal females with a short interval (≤ 12 months) from primary surgery to implant removal had a significant risk for refracture. Tobacco use and alcohol use during bone healing were potential risk factors for male patients, although they were not significant in multivariate analysis. Ten patients received reoperation with or without bone graft, and they had a higher rate of bone union than 13 patients who refused reoperation.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of refracture following implant removal after bone union is underestimated, and severe comminute fractures and unsatisfactory reduction during primary surgery are risk factors. Implant removal for postmenopausal female patients is not recommended due to a high rate of refracture.

Screw stripping and its prevention in the hexagonal socket of 3.5-mm titanium locking screws

There have been several reports about the difficulties in removing 3.5-mm titanium locking screws from plates due to the stripping or rounding of the hexagonal screw socket. We investigated whether stripping the locking screw sockets can be prevented by using different screwdrivers or interposing materials into the socket during removal. We overtightened 120 3.5-mm titanium locking screws (Depuy Synthes, Paoli, PA) equally into locking plates on sawbone tibia models, applying a uniform torque of 4.5 Nm, exceeding the recommended torque of 1.5 Nm. Twenty screws each were removed using a straight-handle 2.5-mm screwdriver, T-handle screwdriver, hex key wrench, and straight-handle screwdriver with a non-dominant hand. In addition, 20 screws were removed using foil from a suture packet inserted into the screw socket or using parts of a latex glove inserted into the screw socket. The incidence rates of screw stripping using the straight-handle screwdriver, T-handle screwdriver, hex key wrench, non-dominant hand, foil interposition, and latex glove interposition were 75%, 40%, 35%, 90%, 60%, and 70%, respectively. When a T-handle screwdriver or hex key wrench was used, the probability of screw stripping was 4.50 times (odds ratio = 4.50, 95% confidence interval = 1.17 to 17.37, p = 0.03) and 5.57 times (odds ratio = 5.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.42 to 21.56, p = 0.01) lower than that with the straight-handle screwdriver, respectively. Foil or latex glove interpositions did not prevent screw stripping. Thus, in the current experimental study, T-handle screwdriver or hex key wrench usage decreased the incidence rate of screw stripping during removal compared to straight-handle screwdriver use.

Hardware considerations in infection and nonunion management: When and how to revise the fixation

The occurrence of both nonunion and fracture-related infection provides challenges for both the patient and the treating orthopaedic surgeon, with the potential need for complex reconstructive procedures to achieve union and/or eradicate infection. In addition to addressing the multiple different factors that often contribute to nonunion, surgeons are often forced to deal with difficult hardware issues at the time of revision surgery including infected hardware, loose or failing hardware, malaligned hardware, or inappropriate hardware constructs. This article reviews common causes of nonunions with emphasis on infection management and provides indications and techniques for hardware removal in the context of an algorithmic approach to nonunion management with illustrative case examples.

Distal Radius Fracture Fixation Devices and Their Radiographs

Background: Distal radius fractures are among the most common fractures encountered in orthopedic practices. If treated operatively, most implants are retained after the fracture heals unless there is hardware failure, limitation of wrist motion, pain, infection, tendon rupture, or tenosynovitis. Complications have been reported during hardware removal, including not knowing the exact implant prior to its removal. If a patient presents for plate removal to a surgeon who did not perform the initial fracture fixation, having a preoperative visual aid can help the treating surgeon choose the right instruments for their removal. Methods: To identify many of the available distal radius fixation devices, we searched the Internet and contacted local industry representatives. We also approached industry personnel at the commercial exhibit of a national hand society meeting to provide us with implants they manufacture. The implants were placed on the volar and dorsal aspects of sawbone models of the distal radius and in one case the radial styloid, using the screws, screwdrivers and accessories in the standard implant set and then posteroanterior and lateral x-rays of the implants were obtained. We created an atlas and a list of the screwdriver(s) used for each. Results: We obtained radiographs and photographs for 28 implants that were manufactured by 14 different companies. Two companies sent us radiographs and photographs placed on either a sawbone or cadaveric model. We found that 7 of the implants were outliers and could be identified easily on the x-rays, whereas 21 implants had similar design of shaft and distal components. Conclusions: To aid the orthopedic surgeon in their removal, we compiled a comprehensive list of most distal radius fixation devices on the market including plates and their corresponding screws and screwdrivers. The goal was to help the surgeon when removing the plate to identify the implant on radiographs.