Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital
Introduction: Metallic implant inserted for orthopedic fracture fixation may be removed for a variety of reasons. There is little consensus if such implant be removed routinely after fracture union. Hence, in our study, we would like to determine the indications for implant removal. Materials and Me...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.jodt.org/article.asp?issn=2665-9352;year=2022;volume=5;issue=1;spage=31;epage=34;aulast=Prashanth |
| _version_ | 1811342768248717312 |
|---|---|
| author | G Prashanth K L Mahendra Kumar S S Shivaprakash M C Dushyantha |
| author_facet | G Prashanth K L Mahendra Kumar S S Shivaprakash M C Dushyantha |
| author_sort | G Prashanth |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: Metallic implant inserted for orthopedic fracture fixation may be removed for a variety of reasons. There is little consensus if such implant be removed routinely after fracture union. Hence, in our study, we would like to determine the indications for implant removal. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of all cases of implant removal at the Orthopaedic Department of Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya, Karnataka, India, from January 2019 to December 2020. Relevant information of patients were extracted and analyzed. Results: The study included 217 patients; there are 161 males and 56 females with a male-to-female ratio of 2.87. The peak age group is 16–30 years with a mean age group of 36.2 years. Distal tibia/ankle (15.66%) is the most common site for implant removal. Tibia (35.4%) is the most common bone. Plates and screws (38.7%) is the most common implant. Patients' request (31.7%) is the most common indication followed by surgeon request (25.8%), prominent hardware (21.6%), infection (17.5%), and failure (3.4%). About 37.7% of implants were removed before 12 months. Conclusion: Patients' request was the most common indication as they wanted implant to be removed and long-term effects of internal implant were not known. Surgeon request is the second most common indication, especially in the pediatric age. Prominent hardware was the third most common indication group as implants were impinging. Infection and implant failure were the other mandatory indications for implant removal. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T19:17:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-630d2aa6432a4c5b94d60a33d923f643 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2665-9352 2665-9360 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T19:17:53Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology |
| spelling | doaj.art-630d2aa6432a4c5b94d60a33d923f6432022-12-22T02:33:38ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology2665-93522665-93602022-01-0151313410.4103/jodp.jodp_34_21Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospitalG PrashanthK L Mahendra KumarS S ShivaprakashM C DushyanthaIntroduction: Metallic implant inserted for orthopedic fracture fixation may be removed for a variety of reasons. There is little consensus if such implant be removed routinely after fracture union. Hence, in our study, we would like to determine the indications for implant removal. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of all cases of implant removal at the Orthopaedic Department of Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya, Karnataka, India, from January 2019 to December 2020. Relevant information of patients were extracted and analyzed. Results: The study included 217 patients; there are 161 males and 56 females with a male-to-female ratio of 2.87. The peak age group is 16–30 years with a mean age group of 36.2 years. Distal tibia/ankle (15.66%) is the most common site for implant removal. Tibia (35.4%) is the most common bone. Plates and screws (38.7%) is the most common implant. Patients' request (31.7%) is the most common indication followed by surgeon request (25.8%), prominent hardware (21.6%), infection (17.5%), and failure (3.4%). About 37.7% of implants were removed before 12 months. Conclusion: Patients' request was the most common indication as they wanted implant to be removed and long-term effects of internal implant were not known. Surgeon request is the second most common indication, especially in the pediatric age. Prominent hardware was the third most common indication group as implants were impinging. Infection and implant failure were the other mandatory indications for implant removal.http://www.jodt.org/article.asp?issn=2665-9352;year=2022;volume=5;issue=1;spage=31;epage=34;aulast=Prashanthimplantimplant removalorthopedic implantpatient request |
| spellingShingle | G Prashanth K L Mahendra Kumar S S Shivaprakash M C Dushyantha Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital Journal of Orthopaedic Diseases and Traumatology implant implant removal orthopedic implant patient request |
| title | Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital |
| title_full | Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital |
| title_fullStr | Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital |
| title_full_unstemmed | Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital |
| title_short | Indications of implant removal: A retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital |
| title_sort | indications of implant removal a retrospective study in a government tertiary care hospital |
| topic | implant implant removal orthopedic implant patient request |
| url | http://www.jodt.org/article.asp?issn=2665-9352;year=2022;volume=5;issue=1;spage=31;epage=34;aulast=Prashanth |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gprashanth indicationsofimplantremovalaretrospectivestudyinagovernmenttertiarycarehospital AT klmahendrakumar indicationsofimplantremovalaretrospectivestudyinagovernmenttertiarycarehospital AT ssshivaprakash indicationsofimplantremovalaretrospectivestudyinagovernmenttertiarycarehospital AT mcdushyantha indicationsofimplantremovalaretrospectivestudyinagovernmenttertiarycarehospital |