Removal of metal implants: A solved problem?

Andrey Volna, Mikhail Panin, Nikolay Zagorodny

Abstract


Up to 30-35 % of operations for removal of hardware pass with unforeseen difficulties, and often with complications. For instance, the risk of a subcapital fracture of the femur after the removal of a proximal nail or DHS in elderly people reaches 70 %. Refractures are most commonly observed after the removal of plates from the forearm diaphysis. According to different authors, the frequency of such refractures is 20-40 %. Diverse scientific information, absence of any clear indications and contraindications for removal of implants at the present period of time lead scientists to continue both discussions and researches in this direction in order to create a definite algorithm of actions in different clinical situations.


Keywords


surgical treatment; metal; complications

References


Бурьянов А.А. Металлические материалы для имплантатов ортопедического и травматологического назначения / А.А. Бурьянов, Н.А. Корж, С.П. Ошкадеров // Ортопед., травматол. — 2008. — №3. — С. 5–10.

George B. Spontaneous femoral neck fracture after removal of Dynamic Hip Screw / B. George, R.S. Gaheer, A. Ratnam // J. Orthopaedics. — 2007. — Vol. 4(1). — P. 14.

Davison B.L. Refracture following plate removal in supracondylar-intercondylar femur fractures / B.L. Davison // J. Orthopaedics. — 2003. — Vol. 26(2). — P. 157–159.

Hanson B. Surgeons’ Beliefs and Perceptions About Removal of Orthopaedic Implants / B. Hanson, C. van der Werken, D. Stengel // BMC Musculoskeletal disorders. — 2008. — Vol. 9. — P. 73.

Beaupre G.S. Refracture risk after plate removal in the forearm / G.S. Beaupre, J.J. Csongradi // J. Orthopaedics and Trauma. — 1996. — Vol. 10(2). — P. 87–89.

Evans N.A. Playing with metal: fracture implants and contact sport / N.A. Evans, R.O. Evans // Br. J. Sports Med. — 1997. — Vol. 31. — P. 319–321.

Femoral nail removal should be restricted in asymptomatic patients / T. Gцsling, T. Hьfner, S. Hankemeier et al. // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2004. — P. 222–226.

Difference in metallic wear distribution released from commercially pure titanium compared with stainless steel plates / G.D. Krischak, F. Gebhard, W. Mohr et al. // Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. —2004. — Vol. 124. — P. 104–113.

Subcapital femoral neck fracture after removal of Gamma/Proximal Femoral nails: report of two cases / Yang Kyu-Hyun, Choi Yoo-Wang, Won Jung-Hoon et al. // Injury Extra. — 2005. — Vol. 36, iss. 7. — P. 245–248.

Serum titanium levels in individuals undergoing intramedullary femoral nailing with a titanium implant / S. McGarry, S.J. Morgan, R.M. Grosskreuz et al. // J. Trauma. — 2008. — Vol. 64(2). — P. 430–433.

Peterson H.A. Metallic implant removal in children / H.A. Peterson // J. Pediatr. Orthop. — 2005. — Vol. 25. — P. 107–115.

Sanderson P.L. Complications of metalwork removal / P.L. Sanderson, W. Ryan, P.G. Turner // Injury. — 1992. — Vol. 23(1). — P. 29–30.

Is galvanic corrosion between titanium alloy and stainless steel spinal implants a clinical concern? / H. Serhan, M. Slivka, T. Albert et al. // Spine J. — 2004. — Vol. 4. — P. 379–387.

Orthopedisch-chirurgische Implantate und Allergien. Gemeinsame Stellungnahme des Arbeitskreises Implantatallergie (AK 20) der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Orthopedie und Orthopedische Chirurgie (DGOOC), der Deutschen Kontaktallergie Gruppe (DKG) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Allergologie und Klinische Immunologie (DGAKI) / P. Thomas, A. Schuh, J. Ring et al. // Orthopade. — 2008. — Vol. 37(1). — P. 75–88.

Townend M. Metalwork removal in potential army recruits. Evidence based changes to entry criteria / M. Townend, P. Parker // J. P. Army Med. Corps. — 2005. — Vol. 151. — P. 2–4.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872009484-87

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2014 Andrey Volna, Mikhail Panin, Nikolay Zagorodny

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.