Outcome analysis following removal of locking plate fixation of the proximal humerus

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Concerning surgical management experience with locking plates for proximal humeral fractures has been described with promising results. Though, distinct hardware related complaints after fracture union are reported. Information concerning the outcome after removal of hardware from the proximal humerus is lacking and most studies on hardware removal are focused on the lower extremity. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze the functional short-term outcome following removal of locking plate fixation of the proximal humerus.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients undergoing removal of a locking plate of the proximal humerus were prospectively followed. Patients were subdivided into the following groups: Group HI: symptoms of hardware related subacromial impingement, Group RD: persisting rotation deficit, Group RQ: patients with request for a hardware removal. The clinical (Constant-Murley score) and radiologic (AP and axial view) follow-up took place three and six months after the operation. To evaluate subjective results, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), was completed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>59 patients were included. The mean length of time with the hardware in place was 15.2 ± 3.81 months. The mean of the adjusted overall Constant score before hardware removal was 66.2 ± 25.2% and increased significantly to 73.1 ± 22.5% after 3 months; and to 84.3 ± 20.6% after 6 months (p < 0.001). The mean of preoperative pain on the VAS-scale before hardware removal was 5.2 ± 2.9, after 6 months pain in all groups decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The SF-36 physical component score revealed a significant overall improvement in both genders (p < 0.001) at six months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A significant improvement of clinical outcome following removal was found. However, a general recommendation for hardware removal is not justified, as the risk of an anew surgical and anesthetic procedure with all possible complications has to be carefully taken into account. However, for patients with distinct symptoms it might be justified.</p

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Introduction: The aim of this review was to collect and summarize published data on the indications for implant removal after fracture healing, since these are not well defined and guidelines hardly exist. Methods: A literature search was performed. Results: Though there are several presumed benefits of implant removal, such as functional improvement and pain relief, the surgical procedure can be very challenging and may lead to complications or even worsening of the complaints. Research has focused on the safety of metal implants (e.g., risk of corrosion, allergy, and carcinogenesis). For these reasons, implants have been removed routinely for decades. Along with the introduction of titanium alloy implants, the need for implant removal became a subject of debate in view of potential (dis)advantages since, in general, implants made of titanium alloys are more difficult to remove. Currently, the main indications for removal from both the upper and lower extremity are mostly 'relative' and patient-driven, such as pain, prominent material, or simply the request for removal. True medical indications like infection or intra-articular material are minor reasons. Conclusion: This review illustrates the great variety of view points in the literature, with large differences in opinions and practices about the indications for implant removal after fracture healing. Since some studies have described asymptomatic patients developing complaints after removal, the general advice nowadays is to remove implants after fracture healing only in symptomatic patients and after a proper informed consent. Well-designed prospective studies on this subject are urgently needed in order to form guidelines based on scientific evidence