Implant Removal Matrix for the Upper Extremity Orthopedic Surgeon

Document Type : TECHNICAL NOTE

Authors

1 Harvard University, Combined Orthopaedic Residency Program, Boston, MA, USA

2 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract

Orthopedic implant removal is a commonly performed procedure. While implant removal can be associated with
improved symptoms, risks of the surgery are notable. Stripped screws, broken and retained hardware, and morbidity
associated with soft tissue compromise during difficult removal are all common. Familiarity with the instruments is
critical to procedure success. The purpose of this study is to assist removal of unfamiliar screws in upper extremity
surgery by offering a reference for screw and driver compatibility across manufacturers.
Inclusion of device manufacturers was determined by market share. Screw size, drive configuration, and screw removal
system compatibility data was collected and recorded. Screw, guide-wire, and screwdriver compatibility was assessed
and compared to two commonly utilized universal implant-removal sets.
Eight upper extremity implant vendors were included. The data was compiled in table format according to manufacturer
and sub-categorized to facilitate screw identification according to radiographically identifiable characteristics.
The diversity of orthopaedic implants in upper extremity surgery requires careful preoperative planning to identify the
appropriate equipment for implant removal.
The goal of this work is to provide a centralized reference of commonly implanted screws, guide-wires, and drivers for
the upper extremity to facilitate removal.
Level of evidence: V

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Snoddy MC, An TJ, Hooe BS, Kay HF, Lee DH, Pappas
ND. Incidence and reasons for hardware removal
following operative fixation of distal radius fractures.
J Hand Surg Am. 2015; 40(3):505-7.
2. Margaliot Z, Haase SC, Kotsis SV, Kim HM, Chung
KC. A meta-analysis of outcomes of external fixation
versus plate osteosynthesis for unstable distal radius
fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2005; 30(6):1185-99.
3. Reith G, Schmitz-Greven V, Hensel KO, Schneider 
MM, Tinschmann T, Bouillon B, et al. Metal implant
removal: benefits and drawbacks--a patient survey.
BMC Surg. 2015; 15(1):96.
4. Lutsky KF, Beredjiklian PK, Hioe S, Bilello J, Kim N,
Matzon JL. Incidence of hardware removal following
volar plate fixation of distal radius fracture. J Hand
Surg Am. 2015; 40(12):2410-5.
5. Rutkow IM. Orthopaedic operations in the united
states, 1979 through 1983. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
1986; 68(5):716-9.
6. Gajdos R, Bozik M, Stranak P. Is an implant removal
after dorsal plating of distal radius fracture always
needed? Bratisl Lek Listy. 2015; 116(6):357-62.
7. De Giacomo AF, Tornetta P 3rd, Sinicrope BJ, Cronin
PK, Althausen PL, Bray TJ, et al. Outcomes after plating
of olecranon fractures: a multicenter evaluation.
Injury. 2016; 47(7):1466-71.
8. Hanson B, van der Werken C, Stengel D. Surgeons’
beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic
implants. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9:73.
9. Nearly 68% of patients improve after hardware
removal, but surgery is costly. Healio Orthopedic
Today. Available at: URL: http://www.healio.com/
orthopedics/trauma/news/online/%7B1f854283-
164c-4fda-b169-d53ee35e324c%7D/nearly-68-
of-patients-improve-after-hardware-removal-butsurgery-
is-costly; 2007.
10. Tyllianakis ME, Panagopoulos AM, Saridis A. Longterm
results of dorsally displaced distal radius
fractures treated with the pi-plate: Is hardware
removal necessary? Orthopedics. 2011; 34(7):e282-6.
11. Gaspar MP, Lou J, Kane PM, Jacoby SM, Osterman AL,
Culp RW. Complications following partial and total
wrist arthroplasty: a single-center retrospective
review. J Hand Surg Am. 2016; 41(1):47-53.e4.
12. Langkamer VG, Ackroyd CE. Removal of forearm
plates. A review of the complications. J Bone Joint
Surg Br. 1990; 72(4):601-4.
13. Brown OL, Dirschl DR, Obremskey WT. Incidence of
hardware-related pain and its effect on functional
outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of
ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15(4):271-4.
14. Jacobsen S, Honnens de Lichtenberg M, Jensen CM,
Torholm C. Removal of internal fixation--the effect on
patients’ complaints: a study of 66 cases of removal of
internal fixation after malleolar fractures. Foot Ankle
Int. 1994; 15(4):170-1.
15. Yao CK, Lin KC, Tarng YW, Chang WN, Renn JH. Removal
of forearm plate leads to a high risk of refracture:
Decision regarding implant removal after fixation of
the forearm and analysis of risk factors of refracture.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014; 134(12):1691-7.
16. Screw removal set–instruments for removing
synthesis screws. West Chester, PA: Synthes (USA),
Inc; 2009.
17. Implant extraction set. Schonkirchen. Germany: Stryker,
LLC; 2014.
18. SmartTrak financial dashboard-2017 WW upper
extremities market. Irvine, CA: BioMedGPS, LLC;
2017.
19. World preview 2016, outlook to 2022. Evaluate
MedTech. Available at: URL: http://www.evaluategroup.
com/public/reports/Evaluate MedTech-World-Preview-
2016.aspx; 2017.
20. Behring JK, Gjerdet NR, Molster A. Slippage between
screwdriver and bone screw. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2002; 404(1):368-72.
21. Macario A. What does one minute of operating room
time cost? J Clin Anesth. 2010; 22(4):233-6.
22. Shippert RD. A study of time-dependent operating
room fees and how to save $100 000 by using timesaving
products. Am J Cosmet Surg. 2005; 22(1):25-34.
23. Mont MA, Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Issa K. Single-use cutting
blocks and trials lower costs in primary total knee
arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2012; 22(1):331-5.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 8, Issue 1
January 2020
Pages 99-111

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 November 2018
  • Accept Date: 19 January 2019
  • First Publish Date: 01 January 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics