Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Kép đầu tiên tác giả Tiến sĩ Busam là thường trú, Khoa Chỉnh hình và Phục hồi chức năng, Đại học Vanderbilt, Nashville, TN. Tiến sĩ Esther là thường trú, Khoa Chỉnh hình, Đại học Bắc Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Tiến sĩ Obremskey là Trợ lý Giáo sư, Khoa Chỉnh hình và Phục hồi chức năng, Phòng Chấn thương chỉnh hình, Đại học Vanderbilt. Không ai trong số các tác giả sau đây | Hardware Removal Indications and Expectations Matthew L. Busam MD Robert J. Esther MD MSc William T. Obremskey MD MPH Dual first authorship Dr. Busam is Resident Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Vanderbilt University Nashville TN. Dr. Esther is Resident Department of Orthopaedics University of North Carolina Chapel Hill NC. Dr. Obremskey is Assistant Professor Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Division of Orthopaedic Trauma Vanderbilt University. None of the following authors or the departments with which they are affiliated has received anything of value from or owns stock in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article Dr. Busam Dr. Esther and Dr. Obremskey. Reprint requests Dr. Obremskey Division of Orthopaedic Trauma Vanderbilt University Medical Center East South Tower Suite 4200 Nashville TN 37232-8774. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006 14 113-120 Copyright 2006 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Abstract Although hardware removal is commonly done it should not be considered a routine procedure. The decision to remove hardware has significant economic implications including the costs of the procedure as well as possible work time lost for postoperative recovery. The clinical indications for implant removal are not well established. There are few definitive data to guide whether implant removal is appropriate. Implant removal may be challenging and lead to complications such as neurovascular injury refracture or recurrence of deformity. When implants are removed for pain relief alone the results are unpredictable and depend on both the implant type and its anatomic location. Current literature does not support the routine removal of implants to protect against allergy carcinogenesis or metal detection. Surgeons and patients should be aware of appropriate indications and have realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of implant removal. Hardware removal is frequently .
