Dataset Information

Elective removal vs. retaining of hardware after osteosynthesis in asymptomatic patients—a scoping review

ABSTRACT: Background Osteosynthesis is the internal fixation of fractures or osteotomy by mechanical devices (also called hardware). After bone healing, there are two options: one is to remove the hardware, the other is to leave it in place. The removal of the hardware in patients without medical indication (elective) is controversially discussed. We performed a scoping review to identify evidence on the elective removal of hardware in asymptomatic patients compared to retaining of the hardware to check feasibility of performing a health technology assessment. In addition, we wanted to find out which type of evidence is available. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL (November 2019). We included studies comparing asymptomatic patients with an internal fixation in the lower or upper extremities whose internal fixation was electively (without medical indication) removed or retained. We did not restrict inclusion to any effectiveness/safety outcome and considered any comparative study design as eligible. Study selection and data extraction was performed by two reviewers. Results We identified 13476 titles/abstracts. Of these, we obtained 115 full-text publications which were assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria. We included 13 studies (1 RCT, 4 cohort studies, 8 before-after studies) and identified two ongoing RCTs. Nine assessed the removal of the internal fixation in the lower extremities (six of these syndesmotic screws in ankle fractures only) and two in the upper extremities. One study analysed the effectiveness of hardware removal in children in all types of extremity fractures. Outcomes reported included various scales measuring functionality, pain and clinical assessments (e.g. range of motion) and health-related quality of life. Conclusions We identified 13 studies that evaluated the effectiveness/safety of hardware removal in the extremities. The follow up times were short, the patient groups small and the ways of measurement differed. In general, clinical heterogeneity was high. Evidence on selected topics, e.g. syndesmotic screw removal is available nevertheless not sufficient to allow a meaningful assessment of effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Prediger B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7532570 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the range and nature of available research regarding sources of information that patients access to inform their decisions about elective surgery.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesPeer-reviewed studies published until February 2019 from the six scientific literature databases were searched and included in the study: Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Web searches for grey literature were conducted in Google, South Australia Department of Health, Commonwealth Department of Health (Australia) and My Aged Care from the Department of Social Services (Australia).Eligibility criteriaStudies with a focus on elective surgery information sources oriented to patients were eligible for inclusion. Only studies written in English were sought and no publication date or study restrictions were applied.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded literature was described by National Health and Medical Council hierarchy of evidence, and data were extracted on country and year of publication, type of literature, who provided it and any information on end users. Information sources were categorised by type and how information was presented.ResultsA pool of 1039 articles was reduced to 26 after screening for duplicates and non-relevant studies. Face-to-face exchanges were the most likely source of information prior to elective surgery (59.3%), printed information (55.6%) followed by e-learning (51.9%) and multimedia (14.8%). The face-to-face category included information provided by the physician/general practitioners/specialists, and family and friends. Printed information included brochures and pamphlets, e-learning consisted of internet sites or videos and the use of multimedia included different mixed media format.ConclusionThere is considerable variability regarding the types of information patients use in their decision to undergo elective surgery. The most common source of health information (face-to-face interaction with medical personnel) raises the question that the information provided could be incomplete and/or biased, and dependent on what their health provider knew or chose to tell them.

Project description:BackgroundAsymptomatic Leishmania infection may play an important role in the transmission of the parasite in endemic areas. At present there is no consensus on the definition of asymptomatic Leishmania infection, nor is there a safe and accessible gold standard test for its identification.MethodsThis paper presents a scoping review to summarize definitions of asymptomatic Leishmania infection found in the literature, as well as to detail the approach (molecular, serological, cellular, and/or parasitological tests) used by researchers to identify this asymptomatic population. A scoping review of published and gray literature related to asymptomatic Leishmania infection was conducted; retrieved citations were screened based on predefined eligibility criteria, and relevant data items were extracted from eligible articles. The analysis is descriptive and is presented using tables, figures, and thematic narrative synthesis.ResultsWe conducted a screening of 3008 articles, of which 175 were selected for the full review. Of these articles, we selected 106 that met the inclusion criteria. These articles were published between 1991 and 2021, and in the last 5 years, up to 38 articles were reported. Most of the studies were conducted in Brazil (26%), Spain (14%), India (12%), Bangladesh (10%), and Ethiopia (7%). Of the studies, 84.9% were conducted in the immunocompetent population, while 15.1% were conducted in the immunosuppressed population (HIV, immunosuppressive drugs, and organ transplantation population). We report 14 different techniques and 10 strategies employed by researchers to define asymptomatic Leishmania infection in an endemic area.ConclusionsThe definition of asymptomatic Leishmania infection is not unified across the literature, but often includes the following criteria: residence (or extended stay) in a Leishmania-endemic area, no reported signs/symptoms compatible with leishmaniasis, and positive on a combination of serological, molecular, cellular, and/or parasitological tests. Caution is recommended when comparing results of different studies on the subject of asymptomatic infections, as the reported prevalence cannot be confidently compared between areas due to the wide variety of tests employed by research groups. More research on the importance of asymptomatic immunosuppressed and immunocompetent Leishmania-positive populations in leishmaniasis epidemiology is required.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this survey study was to evaluate the current opinion and practice of trauma and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands in the removal of implants after fracture healing.MethodsA web-based questionnaire consisting of 44 items was sent to all active members of the Dutch Trauma Society and Dutch Orthopaedic Trauma Society to determine their habits and opinions about implant removal.ResultsThough implant removal is not routinely done in the Netherlands, 89% of the Dutch surgeons agreed that implant removal is a good option in case of pain or functional deficits. Also infection of the implant or bone is one of the main reasons for removing the implant (> 90%), while making money was a motivation for only 1% of the respondents. In case of younger patients (< 40 years of age) only 34% of the surgeons agreed that metal implants should always be removed in this category. Orthopaedic surgeons are more conservative and differ in their opinion about this subject compared to general trauma surgeons (p = 0.002). Though the far majority removes elastic nails in children (95%).Most of the participants (56%) did not agree that leaving implants in is associated with an increased risk of fractures, infections, allergy or malignancy. Yet in case of the risk of fractures, residents all agreed to this statement (100%) whereas staff specialists disagreed for 71% (p < 0.001). According to 62% of the surgeons titanium plates are more difficult to remove than stainless steel, but 47% did not consider them safer to leave in situ compared to stainless steel. The most mentioned postoperative complications were wound infection (37%), unpleasant scarring (24%) and postoperative hemorraghe (19%).ConclusionThis survey indicates that there is no general opinion about implant removal after fracture healing with a lack of policy guidelines in the Netherlands. In case of symptomatic patients a majority of the surgeons removes the implant, but this is not standard practice for every surgeon.

Project description:IntroductionPrimary goal of restorative caries therapy is to preserve pulp vitality and the dentition. Whereas the conventional approach of complete caries removal aims at the elimination of all affected substances without regard to losses of hard tissue or pulp vitality, the innovative concept of selective caries removal (SCR) is characterised by a targeted and non-invasive excavation. It presents a lower risk of accidental pulp exposure, which reportedly has a positive effect on tooth survival. Although clinical data show the benefits of SCR, knowledge about the biological processes during this procedure in the pulp-dentine complex of permanent teeth is scarce. Hence, the aim of this work is to systematically scope the existing literature and map the existing evidence according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. This protocol details the scoping review's methodological and analytical approaches.Methods and analysisFirst, a structure was established (phase I) as basis for a systematic scoping of literature (phase II). In the course of phase I, a total of 100 systematic reviews related to selective caries removal were searched in MEDLINE and information or theories on the biological processes were extracted. During the entire procedure, two reviewers independently screened the articles, and controversies were mediated by vote of a third reviewer. Eventually, it became apparent that different biological explanations can be organised into four categories: pulp response, cavity seal, remaining bacteria and cavity liner. Based on this structure, a search for original publications (phase II) will be performed and retrieved evidence will be assembled using a predefined conceptual framework.Ethics and disseminationAs primary data will not be included in this study, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and summaries for key stakeholders.

Project description:BackgroundElective implant removal (IR) accounts for up to 30% of all orthopaedic surgeries. While there is general acceptance about the need of implant removal for obvious reasons, such as infections or implant failure, little is known about the beneficial aspects in cases of minor reasons such as patients' wish for IR. Therefore, we initiated this study to define patients' benefit of elective implant removal following plate osteosynthesis of displaced clavicle fractures.Patients and methodsProspective evaluation of patients was conducted before implant removal and 6 weeks postoperative. Subjective and objective criteria included pain rating on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and active range of motion (ROM) pre- and 6 weeks postoperative. Functional scoring included Constant-Murley Score, DASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score), MSQ (Munich Shoulder Questionnaire) and SPADI (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index).Results37 patients were prospectively enrolled in this study and implant removal was performed after 16 ± 6.1 months. No re-fractures nor other complications were detected during routine follow up. Functional outcome increased through all scores (Constant score 73.3 ± 14.6 preoperative to 87.4 ± 12.0 postoperative (p = 0.000), MSQ 85.0 ± 7.3 preoperative to 91.8 ± 9.0 postoperative (p = 0.005), DASH Score 7.4 ± 8.2 preoperative to 5.7 ± 9.5 postoperative (p = 0.414), SPADI 93.4 ± 6.6 preoperative to 94.0 ± 10.1 postoperative (p = 0.734).ConclusionsDiscomfort during daily activities or performing sports as well as limited range of motion were the main reasons for patients' wish for implant removal. We found increased functional outcome parameters and decreased irritation after implant removal. Therefore we suggest implant removal in case of patients' wish and completed fracture consolidation.Trial registrationTrial registration no: NCT04343118, Retrospective registered: www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Dataset Information

Elective removal vs. retaining of hardware after osteosynthesis in asymptomatic patients—a scoping review

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets