Dataset Information

Locoregional anesthesia for removal osteosynthesis hardware from healed corpus mandibularis fractures: A descriptive study of a series of 40 cases.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Locoregional anesthesia represents a very interesting modality for the removal of osteosynthesis hardware of the corpus mandibularis. Several procedures have been described, but each is dedicated to a single mandibular segment.

Material and methods

The surgical records of 40 patients treated with rigid internal fixation after maxillofacial traumas were reviewed. Study variables included age, sex, site and number of plates, time of plate removal, reasons for plate removal, and postoperative.

Results

Our study enrolled 40 patients, 45% of whom had single-focal plate placement and 55% of whom had bifocal plate placement. 66% of the patients with bifocal plate placement had the plates removed during the same operation. The average operative time was 45 min for bifocal and 28 min for single-focal approaches. Postoperative complications were observed only for the truncal analgesia procedure of the inferior alveolar nerve at the mandibular foramen. Anesthesia failure was reported in 2 patients.

Discussion

Various locoregional anesthetic procedures are used to remove mandibular body plates but each has its indication depending on the mandibular segment being treated. Factors that can lead to failure of locoregional anesthesia are dominated by the state of inflammation at the site and patient anxiety which can be minimized by premedication with anxiolytics.

Conclusion

Locoregional anesthesia for removal of osteosynthesis hardware of the corpus mandibularis remains a good anesthetic method that is performed in good conditions when it is done in compliance with standards. Its use avoids the usual risks and complications that can occur under general anesthesia.

SUBMITTER: Aloua R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8340045 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOsteosynthesis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsWe 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.

Project description:BackgroundAnkle fractures are among the most common physeal fractures in children. When surgical management is warranted, subsequent hardware removal remains controversial. This study was designed to determine rates of hardware removal in patients with physeal ankle fractures and identify risk factors for removal. Procedure data was utilized to compare rates of subsequent ankle procedures in patients with hardware removed and hardware retained.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) for the years 2015 through 2021. We longitudinally followed patients treated for distal tibia physeal fractures to determine the rates of hardware removal and subsequent ankle procedures. Patients with open fractures or polytrauma were excluded. We used univariate, multivariate, and descriptive statistics to characterize the rates of hardware removal, identify factors associated with removal, and assess the rates of subsequent procedures.ResultsThis study included 1008 patients who underwent surgical management of a physeal ankle fracture. The mean age at index surgery was 12.6 years with an SD of 2.2 years, and 60% of patients identified as male. Two hundred forty-two patients (24%) had their hardware removed at an average time of 276 days (range, 21-1435 days) following index surgery. Patients with Salter Harris III (SH-III) or Salter Harris IV (SH-IV) fractures had hardware removed more often than patients with Salter-Harris II (SH-II) fractures (28.9% vs 11.7%, P < .01). Four-year rates of subsequent ankle procedures are similar between patients with hardware removed and hardware retained.ConclusionThe rate of hardware removal in children with physeal ankle fractures is higher than previously reported. Patients of younger age, higher income, and with fractures involving the epiphysis (SH-III and SH-IV) are more likely to undergo hardware removal.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective study.

Project description:IntroductionStable reduction and rigid fixation of the sacrum and posterior ring structures are of paramount importance in the management of complex pelvic ring disruptions, Tile B and C. The major concern with the use of conventional methods, like iliosacral screws and iliolumbar fixations is the increased risk for surgical and implant-related morbidity, especially in difficult situations, such as comminuted, bilateral sacral fractures, and fractures in the dysmorphic sacrum. Although various biomechanical studies have reported the posterior trans-iliac plates to provide maximum resistance to distracting forces by the principle of tension band, the literature pertaining to this implication in clinical studies has been limited. The purpose of our study was to assess the efficacy of the trans-iliac plate in the management of unstable sacral fractures and its utility in pelvic disruptions associated with surgical site morbidity.MethodologyThe patients with unstable pelvic fractures (Tile B and C) between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed at a trauma center. First, the anterior ring disruptions were stabilized, and then, the sacral fractures (Denis Zone 1-3) treated by posterior tension band plate osteosynthesis (3.5 mm reconstruction plate) were included. Demographic and perioperative data were assessed. The outcome variables studied were surgical morbidity, pain, loss of reduction, and union and implant-related complications. The outcomes were graded using Lindhal's (radiological) and Majeed (functional assessment) scores.ResultsThirteen patients (nine male/four female) with a median age of 42 years, had sacral fractures in Denis zones 1/2/3 (four/ten/one, respectively), resulting from Tile pelvic injury B and C were included. The pelvis in five patients was stabilized only with the posterior plate due to the anteriorly-associated surgical site morbidity (Morel-Lavallee lesions and urinary tract injuries). The mean follow-up was 21.5 ± 2.8 months. All fractures had a radiological union by 22 weeks; Lindhal's grade A in ten patients and grade B in three patients. Two out of three patients recovered from preoperative neurological involvement. Two had complained of implant prominence (BMI<19 kg/m2) and there were no implant failures. Four had excellent, six had good, and three had fair or poor functional outcomes.ConclusionThe posterior trans-iliac plate is a minimally invasive and safe procedure that can be used in a wide range of unstable sacral fractures with notably less implant failure rate. The rigid posterior construct restores the principle tension between the iliac blades and minimizes the secondary displacement of the anterior disrupted structures, thereby useful in managing ring disruptions with surgical site morbidity.

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.