Complication rates following open surgical removal of osteosynthesis material from the pelvis and acetabulum: a retrospective case series of 154 removals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.45294Keywords:
Bone, Case series, Fractures, Implants, Pelvic fractureAbstract
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 THA.
Conclusion: Pelvic implant removals, especially from the anterior pelvic ring or acetabulum, using the ilioinguinal approach, and in case of infection, are associated with a particularly high complication risk. These findings can support clinical decision-making and informing patients on the potential risks of hardware removals.
Downloads
References
Küper M A, Trulson A, Stuby F M, Stöckle U, Konrads C. Complications of surgical approaches for stabilization of pelvic ring injuries: analysis of pitfalls and how to avoid them. J Orthop 2020; 20: 261-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.05.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2020.05.002
Mbatha S, Duma M, Maqungo S, Marais L. Complications of surgically managed pelvic and acetabular fractures. S Afr Orthop J 2023; 22(2): 68-74. doi: 10.17159/2309-8309/2023/v22n2a1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8309/2023/v22n2a1
Kumar D, Singh S, Singh B, Singh A, Sriwastava A, Kumar A, et al. Intraoperative complications in acetabular fracture management using the Stoppa approach: a retrospective cohort study. Injury 2025; 56(3): 112208. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2025.112208
Hermans E, Biert J, Edwards M J R. Epidemiology of pelvic ring fractures in a Level 1 Trauma Center in the Netherlands. Hip Pelvis 2017; 29(4): 253-61. doi: 10.5371/hp.2017.29.4.253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2017.29.4.253
Lundin N, Berg H E, Enocson A. Complications after surgical treatment of acetabular fractures: a 5-year follow-up of 229 patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2022; 33(4): 1245-53. doi: 10.1007/s00590-022-03284-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03284-1
Lee H, Jo S, Lee G, Cho Y. Perioperative complications of the modified Stoppa approach for the treatment of pelvic bone fractures: a single-institution review of 48 cases. J Trauma Inj 2022; 35(1): 19-24. doi: 10.20408/jti.2021.0061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20408/jti.2021.0061
Busam M L, Esther R J, Obremskey W T. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14(2): 113-20. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200602000-00006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200602000-00006
Cronin P, Watkins I, Riedel M, Kaiser P, Kwon J. Implant removal matrix for the upper extremity orthopedic surgeon. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2020; 8(1): 99-111. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2019.36525.1962.
Quade J, Busel G, Beebe M, Auston D, Shah AR, Infante A, et al. Symptomatic iliosacral screw removal after pelvic trauma: incidence and clinical impact. J Orthop Trauma 2019; 33(7): 351-3. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001453
Müller-Färber J. [Removal of metal in traumatology]. Unfallchirurg 2003; 106(8): 653-70. doi: 10.1007/s00113-003-0637-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-003-0637-2
AWMF. Leitlinie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie: Implantatentfernung. 2008. AWMF-Leitlinien-Register Nr. 012/004.
Mathew G, Sohrabi C, Franchi T, Nicola M, Kerwan A, Agha R, et al. Preferred reporting of case series in surgery (PROCESS) 2023 guidelines. Int J Surg 2023; 109(12): 3760-9. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000940
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240(2): 205-13. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Baker L, Park L, Gilbert R, Ahn H, Martel A, Lenet T, et al. Intraoperative red blood cell transfusion decision-making: a systematic review of guidelines. Ann Surg 2021; 274(1): 86-96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004710
Meier J, Filipescu D, Kozek-Langenecker S, Llau Pitarch J, Mallett S, Martus P, et al. Intraoperative transfusion practices in Europe. Br J Anaesth 2016; 116(2): 255-61. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev456
Lenet T, McIsaac D I, Hallet J H, Jerath A, Lalu M M, Nicholls S G, et al. Intraoperative blood management strategies for patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: the Ottawa Intraoperative Transfusion Consensus. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6(12): e2349559. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.49559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.49559
Carson J L, Stanworth S J, Guyatt G, Valentine S, Dennis J, Bakhtary S, et al. Red blood cell transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines. JAMA 2023; 330(19): 1892-902. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.12914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.12914
Stuby F, Gonser C E, Baron H C, Stöckle U, Badke A, Ochs B G. [Hardware removal after pelvic ring injury]. Unfallchirurg 2012; 115(4): 330-8. doi: 10.1007/s00113-012-2157-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-012-2157-4
La Camera F, De Matteo V, Di Maio M, Verrazzo R, Grappiolo G, Loppini M. Clinical outcomes and complication rate after single-stage hardware removal and total hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair controlled study. J Clin Med 2023; 12(4): 1666. doi: 10.3390/jcm12041666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041666
Brown B D, Steinert J N, Stelzer J W, Yoon R S, Langford J R, Koval K J. Increased risk for complications following removal of hardware in patients with liver disease, pilon or pelvic fractures: a regression analysis. Injury 2017; 48(12): 2705-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.09.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.09.030
Srivastava A, Rajnish R K, Kumar P, Haq R U, Dhammi I K. Ilioinguinal versus modified Stoppa approach for open reduction and internal fixation of displaced acetabular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 717 patients across ten studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 143(2): 895-907. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04369-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04369-6
Scrivano M, Vadalà A, Fedeli G, Di Niccolo R, Topa D, Porcino S, et al. A comparison between ilioinguinal and modified Stoppa approach in anterior column acetabular fractures. Injury 2024; 55(2): 111166. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.111166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2023.111166
Hakeem N, AL-Maslmani S, AL-Asiri J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of sciatic nerve injury in acetabular fractures. J Ortho Bone Disord 2023; 7(1): 1-12. doi: 10.23880/jobd-16000229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23880/JOBD-16000229
Timmer R A, Mostert C Q B, Krijnen P, Meylaerts S A G, Schipper I B. The relation between surgical approaches for pelvic ring and acetabular fractures and postoperative complications: a systematic review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2023; 49(2): 709-22. doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02118-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02118-3
Culemann U, Tosounidis G, Reilmann H, Pohlemann T. [Injury to the pelvic ring. Diagnosis and current possibilities for treatment]. Unfallchirurg 2004; 107(12): 1169-84. doi: 10.1007/s00113-004-0898-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-004-0898-4
Giannoudis P V, Chalidis B E, Roberts C S. Internal fixation of traumatic diastasis of pubic symphysis: is plate removal essential? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128(3): 325-31. doi: 10.1007/s00402-007-0429-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0429-1
Putnis S E, Pearce R, Wali U J, Bircher M D, Rickman M S. Open reduction and internal fixation of a traumatic diastasis of the pubic symphysis: one-year radiological and functional outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93(1): 78-84. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.23941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.23941
Haseeb M, Butt M F, Altaf T, Muzaffar K, Gupta A, Jallu A. Indications of implant removal: a study of 83 cases. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2017; 11(1): 1-7.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Thore C Scherff, Nico Hinz, Cornelius Grimme, Karl-Heinz Frosch, Maximilian Hartel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
