Hardware complications and reoperations following precontoured plate fixation of the olecranon: a population-based
Charles Bouchard1, Troy D Bornes1, Anelise Silveira2
1Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Background:
Several fixation techniques have been described to treat acute olecranon fractures. Plate fixation is often used because of its superior mechanical properties. The reported rates of reoperation after olecranon plate fixation have been quite heterogeneous. The purpose of this study was to establish an updated reoperation rate based on modern precontoured plate constructs.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study used population-level administrative data to identify all surgically treated adult patients with olecranon fractures at 4 hospitals in Edmonton, AB, Canada, between 2010 and 2015. Radiographic review was conducted to identify patients who underwent precontoured olecranon plate fixation. Fracture characteristics including Mayo fracture classification and other concomitant upper-extremity injuries were identified. Chart reviews were performed to determine patient characteristics and patients who required reoperation. The primary reason for and type of reoperation were determined.
Results:
Six hundred patients were surgically treated for olecranon fractures. Precontoured plate fixation was used in 321 patients. The average age of included patients was 56 years (standard deviation [SD], 19.4 years), and there were 173 female patients (53.9%). Reoperation was required in 90 patients (28%). For 50 patients, implant-related irritation was the primary reason for reoperation, representing 55.6% of the patients who underwent reoperation (50 of 90) and 15.6% of the total cohort (50 of 321). Other reasons for reoperation included hardware failure in 17 patients (5.3%), infection in 9 (2.8%), and contracture in 9 (2.8%). Patients who required reoperation were significantly younger (52.9 years [SD, 18.1 years] vs. 57.7 years [SD, 19.4 years]; P = .048) and had significantly higher rates of type III olecranon fractures (17.8% [16 of 90] vs. 8.2% [19 of 231]; P = .04) and Monteggia fractures (13.3% [12 of 90] vs. 4.8% [11 of 231]; P = .008). A multivariate logistic regression model also demonstrated increased odds ratios (ORs) for overall reoperation in patients with Monteggia fractures (OR, 2.99 [95% confidence interval, 1.25-7.17]; P = .014) and for reoperation due to implant-related irritation in younger patients (OR, 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.996]; P = .018). No discerning factors were identified for the 50 patients who underwent hardware removal for implant-related irritation compared with the whole reoperation group (n = 90).
Conclusion:
This study found that patients with olecranon fractures treated with precontoured plates experienced a hardware removal rate of 15.6% for implant-related irritation. Patients who sustained more complex fractures, such as Monteggia injuries, demonstrated higher rates of reoperation. Increasing age may be associated with lower rates of reoperation. In patients who required reoperation, there were no identifiable radiographic or clinical characteristics that were associated with implant-related irritation as their primary reason for reoperation.
