Patients were retrospectively identified by their digital patient’s file based on standardized operation and procedure coding (OPS-codes) in Germany (5-787.0d, 5-787.1d, 5-787.2d, 5-787.3d, 5-787.kd).
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: No intervention in terms of a study-related procedure – retrospective observation of surgeries already performed.
All patients who underwent open surgical removal of osteosynthesis material a
Sponsors
BG Klinikum Hamburg
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: All patients, who underwent a surgical removal of osteosynthesis implants at the pelvis between January 2013 and December 2023 at a referral center in central Europe with a specialty in aseptic and septic revision surgery in the field of trauma and orthopedic reconstructive surgery were consecutively included according to the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria comprised all patients who underwent implant removal using open surgery at the pelvis via one or more of the following surgical approaches: Ilioinguinal approach, modified Stoppa/anterior intrapelvic (AIP) approach or Kocher-Langenbeck approach.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Patients who exclusively underwent removal of Iliosacral screws or removal of plates and screws from the iliac crest were excluded, as these are usually less invasive procedures, which are associated with a distinctly different complication profile compared to the aforementioned approaches.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| incidence of perioperative complications associated with open surgical removal of osteosynthesis material at the pelvis and acetabulum | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Comparison of complication rates depending on the surgical approach (Kocher-Langenbeck, modified Stoppa/AIP, ilioinguinal) Comparison of complication rates depending on the anatomical location of implant removal (anterior pelvic ring/acetabulum, posterior pelvic ring/acetabulum, symphyseal plate) Comparison of complication rates depending on the indication for implant removal (infection, interfering hardware, preparation for THA, pseudarthrosis) Incidence of revision surgeries due to perioperative complications Type and severity of complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactNico Hinz
BG Klinikum Hamburg
Outcome results
None listed