Evidence Hub

Complication rates following open surgical removal of osteosynthesis material from the pelvis and acetabulum: a retrospective case series of 154 removals

Scherff TC, Hinz N, Grimme C, Frosch KH, Hartel M

Acta orthopaedica, 2026

141 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While complication rates for primary pelvic and acetabular fracture surgeries are well documented, limited data exists on complications following osteosynthesis implant removals. We aimed to evaluate the complication rates of pelvic implant removals with respect to the surgical approach, type of implant, and indication for removal.

METHODS: This retrospective, consecutive case series included all patients undergoing pelvic implant removal between January 2013 and December 2023 using Kocher-Langenbeck, modified Stoppa (AIP), or ilioinguinal approaches for the removal. Isolated minimally invasive, percutaneous implant removals were excluded.

RESULTS: 154 implant removals in 141 patients were analyzed. Overall complication rate was 34% (n = 53). Most common complications were intraoperative bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 17; 11%), postoperative anemia requiring transfusion (n = 12; 7.8%), and vascular injuries (n = 9; 5.8%). The ilioinguinal approach showed a higher complication rate (19/37; 51%) than the Kocher-Langenbeck (21/68; 31%) or the Stoppa/AIP approach (13/49; 27%). Removal of implants from the anterior pelvic ring and acetabulum (22/45; 49%) also had a higher complication risk than from the posterior pelvic ring and acetabulum (20/67; 30%) or of symphyseal plates (11/42; 26%). Removal due to infection also showed a particularly high complication rate (25/57; 44%) compared with aseptic indications, e.g., interfering material or removal for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 141 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free