Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Fracture incidence following plate removal in Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease: a 32-year study

  • Original Clinical Article
  • Published:
Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Abstract

Purpose

The decision of whether or not to remove pediatric metallic implants remains a controversial issue. Many factors have been cited both in favor and against routine removal of metallic implants. The purpose of this study was to determine the fracture rate following the routine removal of hardware from patients with Legg–Calvé–Perthes (LCP) disease treated by proximal femoral varus osteotomy (PFVO) and to determine if there is an optimal time to remove hardware in this population.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of children who had PFVO with subsequent hardware removal from March 1973 to May 2005 performed by a single surgeon. A total of 196 hips in 184 patients were included. Data was analyzed using logistic regression. Inverse prediction was also used to obtain estimates of the time needed to produce probabilities of no fracture.

Results

Ten out of the 196 hips included (5.1%) sustained a fracture after plate removal. The time from osteotomy to plate removal averaged 10.4 months in the nonfracture group and 4.8 months in the fracture group. This was statistically significant (< 0.0001). Using the logistic regression model, the predicted time to plate removal corresponding to a 95% probability of no fracture was between 5.1 and 8.4 months.

Conclusions

Plate removal remains a reasonable choice but questions remain as to the timing of removal. These data suggest that patients may benefit from extending the time to hardware removal beyond radiographic union to at least six months or more after the osteotomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kahle WK (1994) The case against routine metal removal. J Pediatr Orthop 14(2):229–237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schmalzried TP, Grogan TJ, Neumeier PA (1991) Metal removal in a pediatric population: benign procedure or necessary evil? J Pediatr Orthop 11(1):72–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Busam ML, Esther RJ, Obremskey WT (2006) Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(2):113–120

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jackson DW (2006) Interview with Obremskey WT. Hardware removal is always ‘more difficult than expected’, especially in children. Orthopaedics Today 26:68

    Google Scholar 

  5. Loder RT, Feinberg JR (2006) Orthopaedic implants in children: survey results regarding routine removal by the pediatric and nonpediatric specialists. J Pediatr Orthop 26(4):510–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Peterson HA (2005) Metallic implant removal in children. J Pediatr Orthop 25(1):107–115

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stanitski CL (2005) Metal removal in asymptomatic children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 25(4):557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lovell ME, Galasko CS, Wright NB (1999) Removal of orthopedic implants in children: morbidity and postoperative radiologic changes. J Pediatr Orthop B 8(2):144–146

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenegger H (1979) Manual of internal fixation. Techniques recommended by the AO Group (translated by J. Shatzker), 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 148–153

    Google Scholar 

  10. Becker CE, Keeler KA, Kruse RW, Shah SA (1999) Complications of blade plate removal. J Pediatric Orthop 19(2):188–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jago ER, Hindley CJ (1998) The removal of metalwork in children. Injury 29(6):439–441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bankes MJ, Catterall A, Hashemi-Nejad A (2000) Valgus extension osteotomy for ‘hinge abduction’ in Perthes’ disease. Results at maturity and factors influencing radiological outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(4):548–554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Haddad FS, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (1999) The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons instructional course lectures: Primary total replacement of the dysplastic hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1462–1482

    Google Scholar 

  14. Friedlander JK, Weiner DS (2000) Radiographic results of proximal femoral varus osteotomy in Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease. J Pediatr Orthop 20(5):566–571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Herceg MB, Cutright MT, Weiner DS (2004) Remodeling of the proximal femur after upper femoral varus osteotomy for the treatment of Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease. J Pediatr Orthop 24(6):654–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Burstein AH, Currey J, Frankel VH, Heiple KG, Lunseth P, Vessely JC (1972) Bone strength. The effect of screw holes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 54(6):1143–1156

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Mrs. Adeline Weiner for clerical assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors received financial support for this study, nor are there any potential, perceived, or real conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis S. Weiner.

About this article

Cite this article

Schaaf, A.C., Weiner, D.S., Steiner, R.P. et al. Fracture incidence following plate removal in Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease: a 32-year study. J Child Orthop 2, 381–385 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-008-0108-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-008-0108-y

Keywords

Navigation