Difficulties in removal of the titanium locking plate in Japan.

OBJECTIVE This study was designed to evaluate the frequency of intraoperative complications associated with titanium locking compression plate (LCP) removal. DESIGN Retrospective study. METHODS Medical records were reviewed for surgical technique, plate types used, position and number of screws, time from internal fixation to plate removal, and intraoperative complications. Radiographs were reviewed to evaluate the position of the plates and screws and the accuracy of the screw direction. Mann-Whitney and Yates Chi-square tests were calculated with the level of significance at P < 0.05. RESULTS All LCPs could be removed. Of the 342 locking head screws (LHSs), a total of 21 (6.1%) screws, 3 (2.0%) 5.0 mm screws (3/153) and 18 (10.7%) 3.5 mm screws (18/169), were difficult to remove. The frequency of difficulty associated with the 3.5 mm LHSs was significantly higher than that of the 5.0 mm LHSs (P < 0.01). The frequency of difficulty associated with the removal of LHSs at the diaphysis was higher than that of LHSs at the epiphysis (P < 0.01), especially with 3.5 mm LHSs. The mean age was significantly lower in the patients in whom removal was difficult (P < 0.05). Our analysis revealed that the frequency of removal difficulty was high when a 3.5 mm LHS was inserted into the diaphysis of young patients. CONCLUSIONS We should recognize that the removal of LCPs can involve numerous problems and great care should be exercised, especially in cases involving 3.5 mm LHSs.

[1]  David J Hak,et al.  Removal of Broken Hardware , 2008, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[2]  S. Doig,et al.  Technical difficulty of metal removal after LISS plating. , 2004, Injury.

[3]  G. Haidukewych Innovations in locking plate technology. , 2004, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[4]  K. Koval,et al.  The use of locking plates in fracture care. , 2006, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[5]  Nicholas K. Gove,et al.  Removal of the Less Invasive Stabilization System , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[6]  W. Obremskey,et al.  Hardware Removal: Indications and Expectations , 2006, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[7]  B. Hanson,et al.  Surgeons' beliefs and perceptions about removal of orthopaedic implants , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[8]  Philip F Stahel,et al.  Technical Problems and Complications in the Removal of the Less Invasive Stabilization System , 2010, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.