High Rates of Postoperative Wound Infection Following Elective Implant Removal

Patient satisfaction after elective implant removal of the lower extremity - a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The topic of elective implant removal (IR) in healed fractures of the lower extremity remains controversial, particularly when unspecific symptoms of discomfort, which cannot be quantified, are the primary indication. This study aims to assess indications and outcomes of elective IR of the lower extremity, focusing on unspecific symptoms of discomfort and patient satisfaction postoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single level I academic trauma center. We included patients who underwent elective IR for healed fractures of the ankle, foot, patella, and proximal tibia from 2016 to 2021. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 6 weeks after IR. Our outcomes of interest were patient satisfaction, complications, and alleviation of complaints.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were included in the study. Unspecific symptoms of discomfort were the most common reason for IR in all investigated anatomical regions of the lower extremity (47.9%), followed by pain (43.1%) and limited range of motion (4.2%). 4.8% of patients experienced a combination of pain and range of motion limitation. Among all patients, 47.9% reported subjective improvement after IR. IRs based on unspecific symptoms of discomfort were significantly less likely to show alleviation of complaints after IR (27.5%, OR 0.19, p ≤ 0.01). Patients who reported limited range of motion (OR 1.7, p = 0.41) or pain (OR 6.0, p = 0) were significantly more likely to be satisfied after IR. Patients who reported sensitivity to cold weather also showed a decrease of complaints after IR (OR 3.6, p = 0.03). Major complications occurred in 2.1% of cases. The minor complication rate was 8.4% (predominantly impaired wound healing). Smoking patients showed a significantly higher risk of complications after IR (OR 5.2, p = 0.006). Persistent pain postoperatively was detected in 14.7%.

CONCLUSION

When elective IR for consolidated fractures of the lower extremity is primarily motivated by patients' subjective symptoms of discomfort, the risk for postoperative dissatisfaction significantly increases. Objective symptoms on the other hand are associated with higher satisfaction after IR. While the procedure is generally safe, minor complications such as wound healing disorders can occur, especially in smokers. Patient education and well-documented informed consent are critical.

Elective implant removal in the upper extremity: only symptomatic patients benefit

PURPOSE

Elective implant removal (IR) in the upper extremity remains controversial. Implants in the olecranon and clavicle are commonly removed for prominence, unlike in the distal radius. Patient-reported symptomatic cannot be verified, and nonspecific discomfort remains unquantified. In this study, indications and outcomes of IR at the clavicle, olecranon and distal radius were evaluated, with a focus on postoperative patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, patients, who received elective IR of the clavicle, olecranon and distal radius were included. Patients were followed up at least six weeks after IR. Outcomes included patient satisfaction, symptom resolution, and complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-nine patients were included. Unspecific symptoms of discomfort were the most prevalent indication for IR (48.7%), followed by pain (29.6%) and objective limited range of motion (ROM) (7%). Pain and limited ROM combined was observed in 13.8%. Subjective benefit following IR was described in 54%. Patients with limited ROM (OR 4.7, p < 0.001) or pain (OR 4.1, p < 0.001) were more likely to experience alleviation of complaints. Patients with unspecific symptoms of discomfort, often did not report improvement. Major complications occurred in 2%. Refractures were detected at the clavicle (3.7%) and at the olecranon (2.5%). Minor complication rate was 5%.

CONCLUSION

IR is a safe procedure in the upper extremity. Indications based on unspecific symptoms of discomfort have a significant lower rate of patient satisfaction postoperatively. Elective IR should be considered cautiously, if it is driven primarily by unspecific symptoms of discomfort. Patient education is relevant to prevent dissatisfying outcome.

Preoperative antibiotics reduce early surgical site infections after orthopaedic implant removal: a propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Implant removal in orthopaedics after fracture consolidation is a very common procedure but is still associated with a high rate of surgical site infection (SSI). Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended but advocated by some.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of early SSI following orthopaedic implant removal.

METHODS

A monocentric retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients who underwent orthopaedic implant removal procedures performed from 2016 to 2021 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching function was used to create a cohort with matched baseline characteristics and associated risk factors for SSI. Inter-cohort comparison of the occurrence of SSI (superficial or deep) and revision surgery for SSI, after propensity score matching, was performed using the odds ratio to determine the effect of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis.

FINDINGS

In total, 965 distinct surgical procedures were included. Of these, 69 (7.15%) had an SSI, 24 (35.7%) of which required surgical revision; 214 procedures (22.18%) were performed under preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 396 procedures (198 with and without antibiotic prophylaxis). The SSI rates were 11.11% and 3.03%, respectively, in the control and antibiotic prophylaxis groups (odds ratio: 0.25; 95% confidence interval: 0.099; 0.63; P = 0.011). No difference was found for revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative administration of antibiotic prophylaxis considerably reduces the risk of SSI during the removal of an orthopaedic implant without increasing the risk of side-effects.

Complications of Hardware Removal

BACKGROUND

While hardware removal may improve patient function, the procedure carries risks of unexpected outcomes. Despite being among the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures, scant attention has been given to its complication profile.

METHODS

We queried the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) de-identified database of Part II surgical case lists from 2013 through 2019 for American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) implant-removal codes (20680, 20670, 22850, 22852, 22855, 26320). Hardware removal procedures that were performed without any other concurrent procedure ("HR-only procedures") were examined for associated complications.

RESULTS

In the 7 years analyzed, 13,089 HR-only procedures were performed, representing 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1% to 2.2%) of the total of 609,150 surgical procedures during that period. A complication was reported to have occurred in association with 1,256 procedures (9.6% [95% CI, 9.1% to 10.1%]), with surgical complications reported in association with 1,151 procedures (8.8% [95% CI, 8.3% to 9.3%]) and medical/anesthetic complications reported in association with 196 procedures (1.5% [95% CI, 1.3% to 1.7%]). Wound-healing delay/failure (2.1% [95% CI, 1.8% to 2.3%]) and infection (1.6% [95% CI, 1.4% to 1.8%]) were among the most commonly reported complications after HR-only procedures, but other serious events were reported as well, including unexpected reoperations (2.5% [95% CI, 2.2% to 2.7%]), unexpected readmissions (1.6% [95% CI, 1.4% to 1.8%]), continuing pain (95% CI, 1.2% [1.0% to 1.4%]), nerve injury (0.6% [95% CI, 0.4% to 0.7%]), bone fracture (0.5% [95% CI, 0.4% to 0.6%]), and life-threatening complications (0.4% [95% CI, 0.3% to 0.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Hardware removal is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures and was associated with an overall complication rate of 9.6% (95% CI, 9.1% to 10.1%) in a cohort of recently trained orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. Although specific complications such as infection, refractures, and nerve damage were reported to have relatively low rates of occurrence, and associated life-threatening complications occurred rarely, surgeons and patients should be aware that hardware removal carries a definite risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Safety and feasibility of rigid fixation by SternaLock Blu plates during the modified Ravitch procedure: a pilot study

Background

Patients with anterior chest wall deformities unsuitable for minimally invasive repair are commonly treated by the modified Ravitch procedure. Although rigid plate fixation of the sternal osteotomy has previously shown to facilitate adequate sternal union, its use is troubled by an implant removal rate of up to 23% due to local complaints or complications associated with bulky plates. In contrast, the use of thinner and therefore biomechanically weaker plates may result in a higher incidence of non- or mal-union. In this pilot study, we evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of rigid sternal fixation by thin pre-shaped anatomical locking plates during the modified Ravitch procedure.

Methods

Between June 2018 and December 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent anterior chest wall deformity repair by the modified Ravitch procedure in our tertiary referral centre were included. Data was collected retrospectively. All pectus types were included. The sternal osteotomy was fixated using thin SternaLock Blu plates. Patients were followed for at least one year.

Results

Nine patients were included. The group consisted of six male and three female patients, with a median age of 20 years [interquartile range (IQR), 16–35 years]. Median duration of follow-up was 25 months (IQR, 16–28 months). No intraoperative complications occurred. No patients presented with symptomatic non- or mal-union. Plate removal was performed in one patient for atypical pain without relief. No other postoperative complications occurred.

Conclusions

Based on these pilot results, thin SternaLock Blu plates are deemed to be safe and effective in providing adequate rigid fixation of the sternal osteotomy during the modified Ravitch procedure. Compared to literature, the need for plate removal within 25 months after surgery was reduced.

Implant removal of osteosynthesis. Results of a survey among Spanish orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The indications on extraction of osteosynthesis material are not well defined in the current literature deriving in relative indications, depending on experiences, customs or patient's request. The aim of this article is to assess the beliefs, indications, usual practice and perceived complications of surgeons in Spain regarding on extraction of osteosynthesis material.

METHODS

We conducted a questionnaire of 44 questions covering general demographics, general and subjective opinion on implant removal, specific attitudes by implant type and anatomical location, and personal habits.

RESULTS

164 questionnaires were received. The most frequent indications are patellar and olecranon cerclage wires and elastic nails in children. 56% remove the implant at the patient's request, 31% always remove it in children, 28% do it in asymptomatic patients to avoid possible surgical problems, 14% to avoid a possible peri-implant fracture and 9% by simple preference. The most frequent intraoperative complications are surgery longer than expected, bone growth over the implant, rounded screw head core, cold fusion, difficulty in finding the implant and impossibility to remove part of the implant. The most frequent postoperative complication was persistence of symptoms 39.8%.

CONCLUSION

The results provide information to advise the patient regarding the expected clinical outcome and intra and postoperative complications. The surgeon should cautiously indicate extraction in the asymptomatic patient given the high rate of complications.

Surgical Site Infections After Routine Syndesmotic Screw Removal: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after routine removal of syndesmotic screws (SSs) placed to stabilize syndesmotic injuries.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases for studies published online before February 2020, using the key words and synonyms of "syndesmotic screw" ("ankle fractures" or "syndesmotic injury") and "implant removal."

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were eligible for inclusion when they described >10 adult patients undergoing elective/scheduled removal of the SS.

DATA EXTRACTION

The 15 included articles were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Baseline characteristics of the studies, the study population, the intervention, the potential confounders, and the primary outcome (% of SSIs) were extracted using a customized extraction sheet.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The primary outcome was presented as a proportion of included patients and as a weighted mean, using inverse variance, calculated in RStudio. Furthermore, potential confounders were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of SSIs ranged from 0% to 9.2%, with a weighted mean of 4%. The largest proportion of these infections were superficial (3%, 95% confidence interval: 2-5), compared with 2% deep infections (95% confidence interval: 1-4). These rates were comparable to those of other foot/ankle procedures indicating that the individual indication for SS removal (SSR) should be carefully considered. Future studies should focus on valid indications for SSR, the influence of prophylactic antibiotics on an SSI after SSR, and complications of retaining the SS to enable a fair benefits/risks comparison of routine versus on-demand removal of the SS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial)

Background

Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures.

Methods

This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups.

Discussion

If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella.

Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284

The burden of hardware removal in ankle fractures: How common is it, why do we do it and what is the cost? A ten-year review

BACKGROUND

Ankle fractures account for 9% of all fractures and 40% require surgical management. The ankle is the most common site of hardware removal. The purpose of our study was to investigate the incidence, indication and economic cost associated with removal of hardware from the ankle.

METHODS

We conducted a ten-year retrospective review of 1482 patients treated by open reduction internal fixation for an unstable ankle fracture. Skeletally immature patients were excluded. Data collected was cross referenced from patient medical records, the radiological and electronic patient database. The casemix and hospital inpatient enquiry system (HIPE) were used to calculate costs.

RESULTS

The mean age was 39.9 years with 53.6% male. 185 patients (12.5%) underwent hardware removal with unplanned removal performed in 6% of cases. The average cost of removal was €1113.

CONCLUSION

Removal of hardware continues to be a common operation with significant costs to all involved. More than one in 10 patients underwent future removal of hardware.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Functional outcome of implant removal following fracture fixation below the level of the knee: a prospective cohort study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome in patients undergoing implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation below the level of the knee.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All adult patients (18 to 75 years) undergoing IR after fracture fixation below the level of the knee between November 2014 and September 2016 were included as part of the WIFI (Wound Infections Following Implant Removal Below the Knee) trial, performed in 17 teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in The Netherlands. In this multicentre prospective cohort, the primary outcome was the difference in functional status before and after IR, measured by the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), with a minimal clinically important difference of nine points.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients were included with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range (IQR) 37 to 60), of whom 71 patients (39.7%) were male. With a median score of 60 before IR (IQR 45 to 72) and 66 after IR (IQR 51 to 76) on the LEFS, there was a statistically significant improvement in functional outcome (p < 0 .001). A total of 31 surgical site infections (17.3%) occurred.

CONCLUSION

Although IR led to a statistically significant improvement of functional outcome, the minimal clinically important difference was not reached. In conclusion, this study shows that IR does not result in a clinically relevant improvement in functional outcome. These results, in combination with the high complication rate, highlight the importance of carefully reviewing the indication for IR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:447-453.

The Effectiveness of Surgical Interventions in the Management of Malunited Calcaneal Fractures: A Systematic Review

Nonoperative management may result in calcaneal malunion with consequences of pain, deformity, and functional limitation. The aim of this review was to proffer an evidence-based scientific account of the effectiveness of contemporary surgical procedures in the management of malunited calcaneal fractures after initial conservative management. This systematic review included studies that evaluated the surgical procedures in the management of calcaneal malunion and systematically searched studies published between January 2005 and June 2016. The search was conducted using the following search engines: the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed/ MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, and Open Grey. Methodologic assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias In nonrandomized Studies- of Interventions assessment tool version 7. Ten observational studies (212 patients) were included in this review. Five articles explored various means of achieving subtalar arthrodesis, 2 articles evaluated joint-sparing osteotomies, 1 examined corrective osteotomy for extra-articular os calcis malunion, and 2 articles explored combined procedures based on the Stephen and Sanders calcaneal malunion classification. Clinical and methodologic heterogeneity did not allow quantitative pooling of results. The overall risk of bias was considered moderate in 7 studies and 3 were considered at high risk of bias. The inability for any study to be considered at low risk of bias in this review might be mainly attributed to the lack of a valid and reliable outcome measure for the assessment of foot and ankle conditions. There is clear evidence that appropriately indicated procedures are effective in terms of pain alleviation, correction of deformity, and improved function. However, long-term outcomes may improve the acceptability to joint-preserving osteotomies, subtalar arthrodesis with the VIRA implant and subtalar distraction osteogenesis.

A novel implant removal technique by endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Routine implant removal after fracture healing remains controversial. However, it has been suggested that implant removal should be performed in cases of joint impingement, painful scar adhesion, and implant malposition. Entrance selection is relatively critical in patients with poor soft tissue conditions or sloughing coverage. We propose an innovative technique using endoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive surgeries of endoscopic implant removal performed between 2005 and 2016 by a single experienced arthroscopic surgeon were included. Overall, 73 patients were enrolled; 44 were not eligible for inclusion and were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients, including 32 surgical sites, were included. Twenty-four plates and 166 screws were removed using this technique. There were five complications during the follow-up period (range, 0.5 to 104 months; mean, 8.8), including one broken screw, one persistent knee joint contracture, and three wound dehiscence. There were no infections or neurovascular injuries.

CONCLUSION

Implant removal using endoscopy is a minimally invasive surgery that ensures that the screw axis does not strip, and treats the intra-articular pathology concomitantly. This innovative technique may be considered as an alternative to the traditional open method in cases with good surgical indications.

Effect of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Surgical Site Infections Following Removal of Orthopedic Implants Used for Treatment of Foot, Ankle, and Lower Leg Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Following clean (class I, not contaminated) surgical procedures, the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) should be less than approximately 2%. However, an infection rate of 12.2% has been reported following removal of orthopedic implants used for treatment of fractures below the knee.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a single dose of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of SSIs following removal of orthopedic implants used for treatment of fractures below the knee.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial including 500 patients aged 18 to 75 years with previous surgical treatment for fractures below the knee who were undergoing removal of orthopedic implants from 19 hospitals (17 teaching and 2 academic) in the Netherlands (November 2014-September 2016), with a follow-up of 6 months (final follow-up, March 28, 2017). Exclusion criteria were an active infection or fistula, antibiotic treatment, reimplantation of osteosynthesis material in the same session, allergy for cephalosporins, known kidney disease, immunosuppressant use, or pregnancy.

INTERVENTIONS

A single preoperative intravenous dose of 1000 mg of cefazolin (cefazolin group, n = 228) or sodium chloride (0.9%; saline group, n = 242).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was SSI within 30 days as measured by the criteria from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Secondary outcome measures were functional outcome, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Among 477 randomized patients (mean age, 44 years [SD, 15]; women, 274 [57%]; median time from orthopedic implant placement, 11 months [interquartile range, 7-16]), 470 patients completed the study. Sixty-six patients developed an SSI (14.0%): 30 patients (13.2%) in the cefazolin group vs 36 in the saline group (14.9%) (absolute risk difference, -1.7 [95% CI, -8.0 to 4.6], P = .60).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing surgery for removal of orthopedic implants used for treatment of fractures below the knee, a single preoperative dose of intravenous cefazolin compared with saline did not reduce the risk of surgical site infection within 30 days following implant removal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02225821.

Should syndesmotic screws be removed after surgical fixation of unstable ankle fractures? a systematic review

AIMS

In approximately 20% of patients with ankle fractures, there is an concomitant injury to the syndesmosis which requires stabilisation, usually with one or more syndesmotic screws. The aim of this review is to evaluate whether removal of the syndesmotic screw is required in order for the patient to obtain optimal functional recovery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles in which the syndesmotic screw was retained. Articles describing both removal and retaining of syndesmotic screws were included. Excluded were biomechanical studies, studies not providing patient related outcome measures, case reports, studies on skeletally immature patients and reviews. No restrictions regarding year of publication and language were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 329 studies were identified, of which nine were of interest, and another two articles were added after screening the references. In all, two randomised controlled trials (RCT) and nine case-control series were found. The two RCTs found no difference in functional outcome between routine removal and retaining the syndesmotic screw. All but one of the case-control series found equal or better outcomes when the syndesmotic screw was retained. However, all included studies had substantial methodological flaws.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available literature does not support routine elective removal of syndesmotic screws. However, the literature is of insufficient quality to be able to draw definitive conclusions. Secondary procedures incur a provider and institutional cost and expose the patient to the risk of complications. Therefore, in the absence of high quality evidence there appears to be little justification for routine removal of syndesmotic screws. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1497-1504.

Inpatient orthopaedic hardware removal in children: A cross-Sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Few data describe the specific reasons for inpatient hardware removal in the pediatric population. This study was designed to understand the conditions necessitating inpatient removal following fracture surgery. Cost data was analyzed to understand the financial implications of these procedures.

METHODS

The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) was evaluated for the year 2012. Patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation following upper and lower extremity fractures as well as those undergoing hardware removal due to hardware complications were identified using ICD-9 CM diagnosis and procedure codes. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine predictors of surgical removal due to complications, controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

The most common indication for removal was infection (1141 patients; 32%), followed by mechanical dysfunction (923; 25.4%), and pain (472; 13%). Logistic regression analysis showed that femur fractures (OR = 8.27, 95% CI: 7.63-8.96) and tibia/fibula fractures (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.17-1.35) were independent predictors of infection-related hardware removal (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent removal due to infection were more likely to have asthma (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.62-2.07), smoke tobacco (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.23), and suffer from developmental delays (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.19-1.54) (P < 0.001). Average hospital charges and costs were $36,349 and $11,792 respectively.

CONCLUSION

While most commonly performed as an outpatient procedure, inpatient hardware removal occurs with relative frequency and is most often performed for infection, mechanical failure, or pain. Risk factors for infection-related removal were identified and provide a basis for further investigation.

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

BACKGROUND

Osteosynthesis plate removal is one of the most commonly performed procedures in orthopaedic surgery. Due to technological advances and the quality of increasing osteosynthesis material, more and more locked plates have been implanted over the last 20 years. The aim of this study was to determine whether the complication rate during plate removal differs between conventional and locked plates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 620 patients were included and divided into two groups based on the type of plate (locked and conventional). Technical complications during implant removal included screw breakage, destroyed screw head, implant breakage, remaining implant material, refracture, bony or soft tissue overgrowth. The following plate-associated complications were identified: osteosynthesis plate not detachable, plate bent or broken, necessity of special tools or plate loosened. Three types of screw-related complications were observed: screw not detachable, screw broken or screw dislocated.

RESULTS

Overall, complications related to the plate or screws were documented in 110 of the 620 cases. These complications occurred in 48 of the 382 cases involving conventional osteosynthesis (7.7% of all removals, 12.6% of all conventional removals) and in 62 of the 238 cases involving locked plate osteosynthesis (10.0% of all removals, 26.1% of all locked plate removals). The statistical analysis showed a significantly higher implant-related complication rate with locked plates compared to the conventional plates (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Hardware removal can be a complication-afflicted operation, especially cases involving locked-plate removal should only be performed if a strong indication is evident. Possible benefits of the procedure should be considered carefully, taking the cost-benefit ratio into account.

Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

Background

In the Netherlands about 18,000 procedures with implant removal are performed annually following open or closed reduction and fixation of fractures, of which 30-80% concern the foot, ankle and lower leg region. For clean surgical procedures, the rate of postoperative wound infections (POWI) should be less than ~2%. However, rates of 10-12% following implant removal have been reported, specifically after foot, ankle and lower leg fractures. Currently, surgeons individually decide if antibiotics prophylaxis is given, since no guideline exists. This leads to undesirable practice variation. The aim of the study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a single intravenous gift of Cefazolin prior to implant removal following surgical fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures.

Methods

This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial in patients scheduled for implant removal following a foot, ankle or lower leg fracture. Primary outcome is a POWI within 30 days after implant removal. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, functional outcome and costs at 30 days and 6 months after implant removal. With 2 x 250 patients a decrease in POWI rate from 10% to 3.3% (expected rate in clean-contaminated elective orthopaedic trauma procedures) can be detected (Power = 80%, 2-sided alpha = 5%, including 15% lost to follow up).

Discussion

If administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to implant removal reduces the infectious complication rate, this will offer a strong argument to adopt this as standard practice of care. This will consequently lead to less physical and social disabilities and health care use. A preliminary, conservative estimation suggests yearly cost savings in the Netherlands of € 3.5 million per year.

Trial registration

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02225821) and the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4393) and was granted permission by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Academic Medical Centre on October 7 2014.