ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma
Inpatient orthopaedic hardware removal in children: A cross-Sectional study.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second Chances: A Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America Survey and Review of Current Practices and Attitudes Toward the Reuse of Deep Orthopaedic Implants.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Waste Generation in Pediatric Orthopaedic Hardware Removal Surgery.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Developmental delay increases risk for complications within 30 days of pediatric spinal fusion surgery.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Clinical and surgical factors influencing screw breakage during hardware removal following periacetabular osteotomy.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2024Article
- Screw Diameter and Use of a Washer Affect Symptomatic Implant Removal Rates in Pediatric Medial Epicondyle Fractures.Journal of pediatric orthopedics · 2024Article
- Burden of routine orthopedic implant removal a single center retrospective study.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
- Developmental delay: is this pediatric patient population at risk for complications following open treatment of femoral shaft fracture?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Rates and Factors Associated With Hardware Removal in Physeal Ankle Fractures: Analysis of the Pediatric Health Information System.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Pilot Study and Preliminary Results of Biodegradable Intramedullary Nailing of Forearm Fractures in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Indications for and Risks Associated With Implant Removal After Pediatric Trauma.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022Article
- Management of pediatric forearm fractures: what is the best therapeutic choice? A narrative review of the literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2021Review
- Improvement in Functional Outcomes After Elective Symptomatic Orthopaedic Implant Removal.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2020Article
- Stress Fractures of the Elbow in the Throwing Athlete: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFew data describe the specific reasons for inpatient hardware removal in the pediatric population. This study was designed to understand the conditions necessitating inpatient removal following fracture surgery. Cost data was analyzed to understand the financial implications of these procedures.
methodsThe Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) was evaluated for the year 2012. Patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation following upper and lower extremity fractures as well as those undergoing hardware removal due to hardware complications were identified using ICD-9 CM diagnosis and procedure codes. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine predictors of surgical removal due to complications, controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities.
resultsThe most common indication for removal was infection (1141 patients; 32%), followed by mechanical dysfunction (923; 25.4%), and pain (472; 13%). Logistic regression analysis showed that femur fractures (OR = 8.27, 95% CI: 7.63-8.96) and tibia/fibula fractures (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.17-1.35) were independent predictors of infection-related hardware removal (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent removal due to infection were more likely to have asthma (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.62-2.07), smoke tobacco (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.23), and suffer from developmental delays (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.19-1.54) (P < 0.001). Average hospital charges and costs were $36,349 and $11,792 respectively.
conclusionWhile most commonly performed as an outpatient procedure, inpatient hardware removal occurs with relative frequency and is most often performed for infection, mechanical failure, or pain. Risk factors for infection-related removal were identified and provide a basis for further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.