Percutaneous Removal of Buried Antegrade Femoral Nails

Georgiadis, Gregory M.

doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e318157379e

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each operation has its costs, implies a recovery period and temporary unability to [27,28,30,67]. In general the complication rate differs significantly between studies and estimated risks for adverse events vary from 0 to 1% for postoperative hematoma, up to 14% for wound infection, 1 to 29% for nerve injury, 1 to 30% for a refracture and up to 9% for obtaining a cosmetically disturbing scar [27, 28, 40-42, 44-46, 68].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Vos

Verhofstad²

2013

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Vos

Verhofstad²

2013

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fluoroscopy is an indispensable part of this process, in order to identify the exact position and the depth of the nail. Guided drilling with a cannulated drill secures minimal soft tissue and bone damage at the area of the greater trochanter [ 2–4 ]. Despite all of that, heterotopic ossification may elongate significantly the operation time while impeding adequate exposure of the nail.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drill-guided femoral nail extraction: a novel technique

Misailidis

Aifantis

Pallis

et al. 2021

Journal of Surgical Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Femoral nail extraction, although it is considered a challenging procedure for orthopedic surgeons, can be simplified. We present a new technique to aid the removal of a proximally (antegrade) inserted femoral nail by applying drilling consecutively in order to identify the margins and depth of the nail into the intramedyllary canal of the femur. The damage to the bone is minimal as we use k-wires or drilling and in our practice was uneventful. This technique is the first to be reported in literature. Most authors suggest techniques that enable radiolucent table and fluoroscopy techniques using C-arm. With this technique, traction table and fluoroscopy techniques seem to be less essential to accomplish the removal of a proximally (antegrade) inserted femoral nail.

show abstract

“…7 Improvement of complaints after removal is debatable and disadvantages, such as surgery-related complications or even worsening of the complaints, can appear and are important reasons for the antagonists of removal to leave the implant in. [10][11][12][13] In general, the complication rate differs significantly between studies and estimated risks for adverse events vary from 0 to 1% for postoperative hematoma, up to 14% for wound infection, 1-29% for nerve injury, 1-30% for a refracture, and up to 9% for obtaining a cosmetically disturbing scar. 10,11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] However, in symptomatic patients, the disadvantages are accepted to give these patients the benefit of the doubt, as one of the potential advantages of implant removal might be the improvement of complaints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indications for implant removal: a prospective study

Jain¹,

Patel²,

Jayaswal³

et al. 2019

Int J Res Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The implants removal after fracture healing has always been an issue of controversy. After union, the implant ceases to be important and can be removed. Nevertheless, some patients require metallic implant removal due to various implant-related difficulties. Our study was aimed to identify the most common causes for removal of implant.Methods: The patients admitted for implant removal in our department were consented and included in the study. Pre-operative radiological images collected and evaluated. Post-operatively, images were taken and followed for resolution of symptoms or appearance of new problems.Results: A total of 60 patients were studied. Of these, 47 were males and 13 were females. Mean age was 33.7 years (range 4-70 years). Patient request (35% of patients) was the main indication for removal of implants. Reasons were found to be discomfort due to implant, infection, failure of implants and others.Conclusions: Belief regarding hardware removal has been set and most of them are agreed that routine removal should not be performed unless obviously indicated. In our attempt to fill this gap, we trust that routine removal should not be performed in ‘asymptomatic’ patients. The procedure should not need a big procedure than the implant fixation surgery. Procedure should be sought also as a risk like refracture, bleeding, infection, neurovascular injury and prior to surgery, proper consent to be taken and patient should be well explained. Sometimes indicated results expected after surgery can’t be fulfilled, and instead, complication can results.

show abstract

Percutaneous Removal of Buried Antegrade Femoral Nails

Abstract: Removal of a buried antegrade femoral nail can be challenging. The use of fluoroscopy with percutaneous guide-wire localization can be very helpful. A cannulated reamer can then provide adequate exposure of the tip of the nail with minimal dissection.

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Drill-guided femoral nail extraction: a novel technique

Indications for implant removal: a prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About