Retiro de elementos de osteosíntesis en trauma maxilofacial / Osteosynthesis elements removal in maxillofacial trauma

Resumen Objetivo: Analizar la prevalencia y los factores en la remoción de elementos de osteosíntesis (OTS) de pacientes tratados quirúrgicamente debido a fracturas maxilofaciales. Materiales y Método: Estudio retrospectivo descriptivo, donde fueron incluidos todos los pacientes con diagnóstico de fractura maxilofacial y tratados mediante reducción abierta y fijación interna rígida en un intervalo de 10 años, en el Servicio de Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial en el Hospital Clínico Mutual de Seguridad (HCMS). Resultados: En un total de 807 pacientes intervenidos, con un rango etario entre 22-66 años, fueron utilizados 2.421 OTS. Entre ellos, 58 pacientes (7,2%) fueron sometidos a un segundo procedimiento quirúrgico, retirándose un total de 129 OTS (5,3%). La principal causa de retiro fue infección (41,1%), comúnmente de carácter tardío. El tercio inferior facial fue el más afectado, específicamente, la zona parasinfisiaria. El 39% fue retirado antes de los 12 meses de posicionados. Conclusiones: El retiro de OTS, posterior a trauma maxilofacial tiene una baja prevalencia. El sitio más afectado es el hueso mandibular y la mayoría se retira dentro de los primeros 12-24 meses. La etiología es variable, sin embargo, la infección se mantiene como una de las principales. Los hallazgos sugieren que no sería recomendable realizar este procedimiento de forma universal para todos los pacientes.

Aim: To analyse the prevalence and factors regarding to osteosynthesis elements (OTS) removal from patients surgically treated due to maxillofacial fractures. Materials and Method: Retrospective study in which all patients with diagnosis of maxillofacial fractures and treated with open reduction and internal rigid fixation were included, in an interval of 10 years, in the Maxillofacial Surgery Service of HCMS. Results: In 807 surgically treated patients, with an age between 22-66 years, 2.421 OTS were used. Among them, 58 patients (7.2%) underwent a second surgical procedure, with a total of 129 OTS removed (5.3%). The main cause of removal was infection (41.1%), commonly of a chronic nature. The lower third of the face was the most affected, specifically, the parasymphysis region. 39% of OTS were withdrawn before 12 months. Conclusions: OTS removal after maxillofacial trauma has a low prevalence, the most affected site is the mandibular bone, within the first 12-24 months. The aetiology is variable, however, infection remains one of the main. The findings suggest that it would not be advisable to perform this procedure universally for all patients.

Optimal effective-site concentration of remifentanil for sedation during plate removal of maxilla

BACKGROUND: Removal of the plate following Le Fort I osteotomy and BSSO (bilateral sagittal split osteotomy) is a common procedure. However, patients who undergo plate removal experience intense pain and discomfort. This study investigated the half-maximal effective concentration (Ce50 ) of remifentanil in the prevention of plate removal pain under sedation using dexmedetomidine. METHODS: The study evaluated 18 patients, between 18 and 35 years of age, scheduled for elective surgery. Remifentanil infusion was initiated after sedation using dexmedetomidine, and started at a dose of 1.5 ng/mL on the first patient via target-controlled infusion (TCI). Patients received a loading dose of 1.0 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.7 µg/kg/h. When the surgeon removed the plate, the patient Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score was observed. RESULTS: The Ce of remifentanil ranged from 0.9 to 2.1 ng/mL for the patients evaluated. The estimated effect-site concentrations of remifentanil associated with a 50% and 95% probability of reaching MOAA/S score of 3 were 1.28 and 2.51 ng/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Plate removal of maxilla can be successfully performed without any pain or adverse effects by using the optimal remifentanil effect-site concentration (Ce50 , 1.28 ng/mL; Ce95 , 2.51 ng/mL) combined with sedation using dexmedetomidine.

Clinical Assessment after the Volar Locking Plate Removal of Distal Radius Fracture

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes after removing the volar locking plate for distal radius fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively the medical records of 34 patients, 36 cases after removing the plates among 150 patients, with 162 cases that underwent open reduction and internal fixation using the volar locking plate between January 2006 and May 2011. We performed preoperative and postoperative clinical assessments using the quick-disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (Q-DASH), the visual analog scale (VAS) score, and the range of motion on wrist, grip and pinch power. RESULTS: The major reason for plate removal was the time to remove the plate according to the fracture union and the patient's demand without other specific complaints (28 cases). The mean preoperative VAS score was 1.78 and the mean postoperative VAS score 1.81 (p=0.64). The mean preoperative Q-DASH score was 30.02 and the mean postoperative Q-DASH score 38.46 (p<0.001). The mean preoperative grip and pinch power were 18.14 kg and 7.67 kg. The mean postoperative grip and pinch power were 15.27 kg and 6.94 kg (p=0.23). CONCLUSION: The removal of the volar locking plate for distal radius fracture should be decided by considering the patient's clinical and socioeconomic conditions carefully.

A Technique for Removal of Forearm Dynamic Compression Plate with Stripped Screws: A Report of Three Cases

Removal of plates is a procedure commonly performed by orthopaedic surgeons and stripped screws are probably the most common problem encountered during this procedure. Stripped screws are caused by slippage between the screwdriver and the screw. Due to the inherent difficulty in removing such screws, surgeons should be knowledgeable in techniques for their removal and should be equipped with the proper instruments to expedite the procedure. There are few published articles about such techniques. This report describes a technique for removal of plates with stripped screws. The tip of a stripped screw is approached from the far cortex and then reamed with a trephine reamer in the direction of the screw until both cortices are cleared. The plate is then removed with stripped screws attached. All the removals utilizing this technique to date have been successful with no complications, and this method is safe, efficient and technically easy to learn.

The Removal of Plates after Craniomaxillofacial Surgery: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE: Plate systems have been used for osteosynthesis of cranial and oromaxillofacial fracture. However, there is no consensus on the need for routine removal of plate and the question about indications of removal. Therefore, we present the retrospective study to clarify the indications and consensus of removal. METHODS: The medical records of patients who were treated with rigid internal fixation using plates after craniofacial trauma were reviewed. Study variables included age, gender, type of fracture, type of plate, seniority of the operator, causes of removal, and time between insertion and removal. All results amendable to statistics were analyzed using SPSS 10.0 to determine which set of variables might affect the fate of the plates. RESULTS: For a period of 10 years (March 1, 1994 through July 31, 2004), total of 41 plates(6.7%) were removed among 609 plates inserted into 419 patients; 27 plates were removed from 15 patients for infection, which is the most common cause of removal accounting for 65.8%. Mean time between insertion and removal is 35.2 months and mean age is 41.4 years. Most plates were removed from combined fracture(14.92%) and facial fracture(8.47%) and these were statistically significant. The age, gender, seniority of the operator and other variables were not statistically associated with plate removal. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study shows that routine removal does not appear to be clinically indicated due to respectively low removal rate and that the commonest indications for removal were infection.