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: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.

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:BACKGROUND:The 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:Though 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%). CONCLUSION:This 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:BackgroundThree-dimensional preoperative planning was applied for the osteosynthesis of distal radius fractures. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of three-dimensional preoperative planning for the osteosynthesis of distal radius fractures with three-dimensional reference points.MethodsSixty-three wrists of 63 distal radius fracture patients who underwent osteosynthesis with three-dimensional preoperative planning were evaluated. After taking preoperative CT scans of the injured wrists, 3D images of the distal radius were created. Fracture reduction, implants choices, and placements simulation were performed based on the 3D images. One month after the surgery, postoperative CT images were taken. The reproducibility was evaluated with preoperative plan and postoperative 3D images. The images were compared with the three-dimensional coordinates of radial styloid process, volar and dorsal edges of sigmoid notch, and the barycentric coordinates of the three reference points. The reproducibility of the preoperative plan was evaluated by the distance of the coordinates between the plan and postoperative images for the reference points. The reproducibility of radial inclination and volar tilt on three-dimensional images were evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsThe distances between the preoperative plan and the postoperative reduction for each reference point were (1) 2.1±1.3 mm, (2) 1.9±1.2 mm, and (3) 1.9±1.2 mm, respectively. The distance between the preoperative plan and postoperative reduction for the barycentric coordinate was 1.3±0.8 mm. ICCs were 0.54 and 0.54 for the volar tilt and radial inclination, respectively (P<0.01).ConclusionsThree-dimensional preoperative planning for the osteosynthesis of distal radius fracture was reproducible with an error of about 2 mm for each reference point and the correlations of reduction shapes were moderate. The analysis method and reference points may be helpful to understand the accuracy of reductions for the three-dimensional preoperative planning in the osteosynthesis of distal radius fractures.Trial registrationRegistered as NCT02909647 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundHumeral head inferior subluxation often occurs immediately after osteosynthesis for proximal humeral fracture; however, the underlying cause remains largely unknown. In addition, the prognosis of postoperative inferior subluxation has not been fully investigated. This study aimed to clarify the predictive factors that affected the onset of postoperative inferior subluxation using multivariate analysis and examine the postoperative course of inferior subluxation and its influence on postoperative outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 212 patients who underwent osteosynthesis for Neer 2- or 3-part proximal humeral fractures. In the multivariate analysis, the dependent variable was set as the inferior subluxation observed 1 week after the surgery. The explanatory variables included age, sex, affected side, body mass index, smoking, local osteoporosis, preoperative axillary nerve injury, time from injury to surgery, fracture dislocation, fracture pattern, preoperative inferior subluxation, surgical procedure, surgical approaches, blood loss, operative time, and postoperative drainage. Baseline variables, which were observed to be significant in the univariate analysis, were included in multivariate models. Furthermore, based on the presence of inferior subluxation at 1 week after the surgery, we divided the patients into two groups: with inferior subluxation (+IS group) and without inferior subluxation (-IS group). We compared the postoperative outcomes (incidence of postoperative complications and range of motion) between these two groups.ResultsOf 212 patients, 64 (30.7%) experienced inferior subluxation at 1 week after the surgery. On multivariate analyses, preoperative inferior subluxation (odds ratio = 4.69; 95% confidence interval = 2.45-9.76; P < .001) and longer operative time (odds ratio = 1.01; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.02; P = .049) were the risk factors for postoperative inferior subluxation. In the +IS group, inferior subluxation resolved at 1 year after the surgery in 89.5% of patients. There was no significant difference in the postoperative outcome between the +IS and -IS groups. However, four of six patients with persistent inferior subluxation, more than 6 months after the surgery, experienced complications, such as varus angulation of the humeral head or screw joint perforation.ConclusionsThis study provides new information on the risk factors for and prognosis of postosteosynthesis inferior subluxation in patients with proximal humeral fracture. Longer operative time and presence of preoperative inferior subluxation was associated with an increased risk of postoperative inferior subluxation, although it was temporary in most cases, and had no significant influence on the postoperative outcomes. However, in patients with persistent inferior subluxation of more than 6 months duration, inferior subluxation may be related to postoperative complications.

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 .