Complications and Outcomes of Metallic Plate Removal in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Neelofar Rehman; Nadia Mansoor; Alaf Khan

doi:10.65293/jbkcd.v1i01.4

Authors

Neelofar Rehman Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostics, Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Nadia Mansoor Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostics, Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Alaf Khan Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65293/jbkcd.v1i01.4

Keywords:

Metallic Plate Removal, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Complication, Orif, Infection, Plate Exposure, Patient Outcomes

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess the complications and outcomes of metallic plate removal in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery. It also sought to evaluate correlations between patient demographics, surgical variables, and reasons for plate removal.

Study Design: A Cross-sectional study

Place and Duration of Study: This study was conducted in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, from January to June 2022.

Methodology: A total of 17 patients who underwent removal of a metallic plate after oral and maxillofacial surgery were included. The collected data included age, gender, surgical details, complications, duration of plate retention, reasons for removal, and the anatomical site of removal. Statistical analysis was performed to determine associations between these variables.

Results: Patients aged 18–30 made up 28.6% of the sample, and 60% were male. The most common procedure was mandibular Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) (35.7%). The significant reasons for plate removal were infection (31.4%), pain or discomfort (21.4%), and plate exposure (17.1%). Plates were most frequently removed from the mandible (42.9%), with 31.4% removed after more than 24 months. Significant associations were found between age and site (p = 0.041), duration (p = 0.028), and cause (p = 0.035) of removal. Operation type and comorbidities also significantly influenced the reason and timing of removal (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Infection, discomfort, and plate exposure are common reasons for metallic plate removal in oral and maxillofacial surgery, particularly involving the mandible. Age, surgical type, and comorbidities significantly influence removal decisions, underscoring the need for individualized surgical planning and postoperative care.

Author Biography

Nadia Mansoor, Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostics, Bacha Khan College of Dentistry, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Corresponding Author: nadiamansoordr@gmail.com

References

1. Abouseif N, Ibrahim N, Jaber M, Hassan M, El-Ameen AM. Reasons for removal of miniplates used in fixation of maxillofacial bone fractures: Systematic review and meta-analysis [Internet]. Preprints. 2023. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.20944/preprints202309.1497.v1

2. Aramanadka C, Kamath AT, Srikanth G, Pai D, Singla N, Daundiyal S, et al. Hardware removal in maxillofacial trauma: A retrospective study. ScientificWorldJournal [Internet]. 2021;2021:9947350. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9947350

3. Thorén H, Snäll J, Kormi E, Lindqvist C, Suominen-Taipale L, Törnwall J. Symptomatic plate removal after treatment of facial fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2010;38(7):505–10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.01.005

4. Hanson J, Lovald S, Cowgill I, Erdman M, Diamond B. National hardware removal rate associated with internal fixation of facial fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2011;69(4):1152–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.029

5. Kent S, Al-Izzi T, Herbert C, Ryan M. A Retrospective Review of Metal Plate Removal in an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research [Internet]. 2017;5(1):5–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12691/ijdsr-5-1-2

6. Venkatesan G, Sahoo N, Murthy AS, Lehman JA. Incidence of plate removal and its correlation to the site of injury in patients with maxillofacial trauma: a retrospective study. Int J Med Dent Sci [Internet]. 2021;2018–23. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18311/ijmds/2021/26745

7. Piombino P, Sani L, Sandu G, Carraturo E, De Riu G, Vaira LA, et al. Titanium internal fixator removal in maxillofacial surgery: Is it necessary? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniofac Surg [Internet]. 2023;34(1):145–52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000009006

8. Gómez-Barrachina R, Montiel-Company JM, García-Sanz V, Almerich-Silla JM, Paredes-Gallardo V, Bellot-Arcís C. Titanium plate removal in orthognathic surgery: prevalence, causes and risk factors. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2020;49(6):770–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.11.003

9. Hernandez Rosa J, Villanueva NL, Sanati-Mehrizy P, Factor SH, Taub PJ. Review of maxillofacial hardware complications and indications for salvage. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr [Internet]. 2016;9(2):134–40. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1570074

10. Bakathir AA, Margasahayam MV, Al-Ismaily MI. Removal of bone plates in patients with maxillofacial trauma: a retrospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod [Internet]. 2008;105(5):e32-7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.01.006

11. Bhatt V, Chhabra P, Dover MS. Removal of miniplates in maxillofacial surgery: a follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2005;63(6):756–60. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.02.005

12. Oconnell J, Murphy C, Ikeagwuani O, Adley C, Kearns G. The fate of titanium miniplates and screws used in maxillofacial surgery: A 10-year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2009;38(7):731–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.016

13. Rallis G, Mourouzis C, Papakosta V, Papanastasiou G, Zachariades N. Reasons for miniplate removal following maxillofacial trauma: a 4-year study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2006;34(7):435–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2006.07.001

14. Bhatt V, Langford RJ. Removal of miniplates in maxillofacial surgery: University Hospital Birmingham experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2003;61(5):553–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/joms.2003.50108

15. Cahill TJ 3rd, Gandhi R, Allori AC, Marcus JR, Powers D, Erdmann D, et al. Hardware removal in craniomaxillofacial trauma: A systematic review of the literature and management algorithm. Ann Plast Surg [Internet]. 2015;75(5):572–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000194

16. Jain R, Podworny N, Hearn T, Anderson GI, Schemitsch EH. Effect of stainless steel and titanium low-contact dynamic compression plate application on the vascularity and mechanical properties of cortical bone after fracture. J Orthop Trauma [Internet]. 1997;11(7):490–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199710000-00006

17. Manor Y, Chaushu G, Taicher S. Risk factors contributing to symptomatic plate removal in orthognathic surgery patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 1999;57(6):679–82. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90430-5

18. Kubota Y, Kuroki T, Akita S, Koizumi T, Hasegawa M, Rikihisa N, et al. Association between plate location and plate removal following facial fracture repair. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg [Internet]. 2012;65(3):372–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.09.040

19. Aramanadka C, Kamath AT, Srikanth G, Pai D, Singla N, Daundiyal S, et al. Hardware removal in maxillofacial trauma: A retrospective study. ScientificWorldJournal [Internet]. 2021;2021:9947350. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9947350