Share this article on:

Hardware Removal in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Management Algorithm

Cahill, Thomas J. III BS, MS*; Gandhi, Rikesh BS*; Allori, Alexander C. MD, MPH; Marcus, Jeffrey R. MD; Powers, David MD, DMD; Erdmann, Detlev MD, PhD, MHSC; Hollenbeck, Scott T. MD; Levinson, Howard MD†‡

doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000194
Review Article

Background Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) fractures are typically treated with open reduction and internal fixation. Open reduction and internal fixation can be complicated by hardware exposure or infection. The literature often does not differentiate between these 2 entities; so for this study, we have considered all hardware exposures as hardware infections. Approximately 5% of adults with CMF trauma are thought to develop hardware infections. Management consists of either removing the hardware versus leaving it in situ. The optimal approach has not been investigated. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken and a resultant evidence-based approach to the treatment and management of CMF hardware infections was devised.

Materials and Methods A comprehensive search of journal articles was performed in parallel using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect electronic databases. Keywords and phrases used were maxillofacial injuries; facial bones; wounds and injuries; fracture fixation, internal; wound infection; and infection. Our search yielded 529 articles. To focus on CMF fractures with hardware infections, the full text of English-language articles was reviewed to identify articles focusing on the evaluation and management of infected hardware in CMF trauma. Each article’s reference list was manually reviewed and citation analysis performed to identify articles missed by the search strategy. There were 259 articles that met the full inclusion criteria and form the basis of this systematic review. The articles were rated based on the level of evidence. There were 81 grade II articles included in the meta-analysis.

Result Our meta-analysis revealed that 7503 patients were treated with hardware for CMF fractures in the 81 grade II articles. Hardware infection occurred in 510 (6.8%) of these patients. Of those infections, hardware removal occurred in 264 (51.8%) patients; hardware was left in place in 166 (32.6%) patients; and in 80 (15.6%) cases, there was no report as to hardware management. Finally, our review revealed that there were no reported differences in outcomes between groups.

Conclusions Management of CMF hardware infections should be performed in a sequential and consistent manner to optimize outcome. An evidence-based algorithm for management of CMF hardware infections based on this critical review of the literature is presented and discussed.

From the *Duke University School of Medicine; †Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, and ‡Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Received September 5, 2013, and accepted for publication, after revision, February 6, 2014.

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.

Reprints: Howard Levinson, MD, Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Departments of Surgery and Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, 3181, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail: howard.levinson@duke.edu.

T.J.C. and R.G. contributed equally to this work.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.

Each year, approximately 5000 patients with craniomaxillofacial (CMF) trauma are treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).1,2–7 Open reduction and internal fixation can be complicated by hardware exposure, hardware loosening, or infection.1–4,8–10 Differentiation between hardware exposure and infection is often not obvious and diagnostic tests are limited. Hardware infection is typically associated with redness, warmth, and inflammation. The area is usually painful and may drain pus. Occasionally, the patient develops fever and chills. Leukocytosis, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (82% sensitivity, 85% specificity), or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) (96% sensitivity, 92% specificity) levels may be observed.11,12 Infected hardware is populated with bacterial colonies.13 On the contrary, with hardware exposure, the patient may not experience signs of infection, and ESR and CRP levels may be normal. Culturing exposed hardware will not lead to bacterial growth. Unfortunately, reports in the literature do not differentiate between hardware infection and hardware exposure in the CMF region.14–17 Because infection is more serious than exposure, for the purposes of this study we have considered all indeterminate cases as hardware infection.

Infected hardware leads to hardware exposure, extrusion, fistula formation, bony nonunion, and osteomyelitis. It is widely agreed upon that hardware infection should be managed by debridement of necrotic and infected tissue, and antibiotic administration. However, it is unclear, if the infected hardware needs to be removed or if it is removed, whether it can be immediately replaced with repeat ORIF.18–24 Many authors report that the CMF region is considered a privileged site that does not necessarily require hardware removal.19,21,23–27 This is in contrast to other sites such as the extremities, where Rightmire et al28 demonstrated that one third of infected hardware cases required hardware removal and Viol et al proposed that hardware loosening, hardware exposure greater than 2 weeks, or positive wound cultures are indications for hardware removal.15–17,29–32 To clarify whether hardware should be removed in managing CMF hardware infections, we have performed a systematic review of the literature and devised an evidence-based algorithm.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review was performed according to “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses” guidelines.33 Searches were performed in parallel in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science electronic databases. The search strategy included the following medical subject headings (MeSH terms): maxillofacial injuries; facial bones; wounds and injuries; fracture fixation, internal; wound infection; and infection. Related non-MeSH, free-text search strings were also included. The full text of English-language articles was reviewed to identify articles focusing on the evaluation and management of infected hardware in CMF trauma. Articles limited to nontrauma scenarios (eg, oncologic head-and-neck reconstruction) were excluded from review. Case reports, case series, observational studies, and experimental trials were included, letters and commentaries were excluded. Each article’s reference list was manually reviewed and citation analysis performed to identify articles missed by the search strategy.

Two reviewers (T.J.C. and R.G.) independently evaluated articles to determine eligibility; disputes were resolved by discussion and consensus moderated by a third reviewer (A.C.A.). Strength of recommendations were then graded according to the American Society of Plastic Surgery grading system (ASPS, 5 grading levels; I-V), with additional considerations given to criteria from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the United States Preventive Services Task Force rating systems.34,35 Quality of the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group emerging consensus.36 The principal variable of interest was management strategy (removal of hardware, hardware exchange, or nonremoval and observation of hardware in the context of hardware infection). Other variables of interest included location of fracture, type of infection (cellulitis, abscess, and draining sinus), and pathogen type. Primary outcome of interest was resolution of infection without need for further procedures.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

The search identified 529 articles for consideration, of which 259 articles met preliminary inclusion criteria. Review of the reference lists and citation analyses identified 1 additional study (Fig. 1).

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

The 259 articles that met criteria were published between the years of 1963 and 2012. Study designs consisted of meta-analysis, prospective studies, retrospective studies, randomized controlled trials, case series, and expert opinions. Outcomes considered in these studies included malunion, infection rates, infection types, antibiotic treatment, surgical technique, hardware type, and patient satisfaction.

One article met criteria for inclusion as grade I, 81 articles met criteria for inclusion as grade II, 103 articles met criteria for inclusion as grade III, 29 articles met criteria for inclusion as grade IV, and 43 articles met criteria for inclusion as grade V (Fig. 2A,B). The grade I article and 3 grade II articles most pertinent to our study are presented later as examples to the content of the literature. The 3 grade II articles were selected based on their relevance our study and their quality (grade IIA per Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and were High Quality per GRADE criteria). None of the 259 articles specifically discussed whether the hardware should be removed or left in place in cases of hardware infection.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Grade I Article

The single grade I study completed by Regev et al1 was a meta-analysis of 24 studies on internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures. The authors compared complication rates for different fixation methods. The rates of infection ranged from 2.7% to 26.8% and the rates of hardware removal ranged from 2.3% to 28.1%. The study found multiple variables influence infection rate including plate choice (compressible vs noncompressible), screw choice (monocortical vs bicortical), and number of plates (1 vs 2 plates). Compressible plates, bicortical screws, and use of 2 plates lead to higher infection rates. Because of higher infection rates, compression plates were more likely to require reoperation, hardware removal, and malunion but not nonunion. Although the study illustrated that infection rate is related to a multitude of factors, the study did not reveal or suggest how to manage infection once it had occurred.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Grade II Articles

In a prospective, randomized controlled trial, Danda2 compared postoperative complications after mandibular angle fracture fixation. This study compared the use of 2 noncompression miniplates to the standard technique of 1 noncompression miniplate. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for infection. Criteria for infection included (1) purulent discharge from the incision, or (2) serosanguineous drainage and a positive wound culture for a known pathogen. The ESR and total leukocyte count were not considered diagnostic. Both groups of patients were given ampicillin perioperatively and postoperatively for 3 days. Of the 54 patients treated, infections occurred in 1 patient in group 1 (single noncompression plate) and 2 patients in group 2 (2 noncompression plates) with 2 patients requiring plate removal. Indications for plate removal in these 2 cases were not discussed.

In a systematic review of the literature comparing closed versus open reduction and rigid fixation, Andreasen et al4 found fractures treated with closed reduction had an infection rate of 5.0% and fractures treated with ORIF with either plates or wires had an infection rate of 10.6% and 14.6%, respectively. Their study did not elaborate on optimal management of infected hardware.

In a systematic review by Hermund et al,3 the authors found there was a postoperative complication rate of 7% to 33% in mandibular fracture treated by ORIF. There was no clear correlation between timing of treatment and number or type of complications. The authors did not specifically address how to best manage infected hardware.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Meta-analysis

We then reviewed all grade II articles2–4,7–9,20–27,37–91 for inclusion in a meta-analysis. We selected articles for which occurrences of hardware infection had been measured and excluded articles that were themselves meta-analyses. Sixty-six (3 grade IIA and 66 grade IIB) articles satisfy the previously mentioned criteria for meta-analysis.

The meta-analysis revealed that 7503 patients were treated with hardware for CMF fractures. Hardware infection occurred in 510 (6.8%) of these patients. Of those infections, hardware removal occurred in 264 (51.8%) patients; hardware was left in situ in 166 (32.6%) patients; and in 80 (15.6%) cases, hardware management was not reported. Finally, our review revealed that there were no reported differences in outcomes between groups.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

The major conclusions of the current study are that there are no set criteria for the management of infected CMF hardware after trauma and that hardware infection in the CMF region can be managed by hardware preservation. First, our literature review demonstrates that there are no criteria for the management of infected CMF hardware. Next, we demonstrate through a meta-analysis that there are no reported differences in outcomes for managing infected hardware by either leaving it in situ versus removing it. Finally, we propose an algorithm for the management of infected CMF hardware (Fig. 3).

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3

In extremity cases where orthopedic hardware is either exposed or overtly infected, clinical management depends on criteria that include duration of exposure, hardware loosening, fracture location,30 and whether the bone is healed (stable).92 A healed bone is one that cannot be displaced from its correct anatomical alignment once the hardware is removed, whereas unstable bone will be displaced after hardware removal.92 Currently, no standard criteria exist to define when a fracture may be classified as a nonunion. The FDA defines nonunion as a fractured bone that has not completely healed within 9 months after injury and shows no progression toward healing on serial radiographs over the course of 3 consecutive months.92–95 Bishop et al outline the risk factors for nonunion, which include various medical comorbidities, age, sex, smoking, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, genetic disorders (eg, neurofibromatosis, osteogenesis imperfecta, and osteopetrosis), metabolic disease, and nutritional status.92–94 Osteomyelitis may also lead to unstable bone. Pathogens proliferate in the devitalized tissue leading to fracture nonunion. Osteomyelitis could be caused by infected hardware or could cause hardware to become infected. In the extremities, infected nonunion has been treated with aggressive surgical debridement with hardware removal, local and systemic antibiotics, revision open reduction and internal fixation or external fixation with correction of deformity, and bone grafting.96,97 If the bone is stable, surgical removal of involved hardware is possible without compromising bony stability.98–105

A prolonged period of hardware exposure leads to contamination and secondary infection. Several studies report better outcomes when definitive management occurs within 2 to 3 weeks. Nahabedian et al95 reported a salvage rate of 83% of prostheses when debridement with soft tissue coverage was performed within 3 weeks. Thus, as a rule, they concluded hardware should be covered if exposed for more than 3 weeks. In the lower extremities, exposed hardware can be treated conservatively by leaving the hardware in situ with soft tissue reconstruction if no gross infection is present.30 Infected hardware can loosen as well. Hardware loosening is an absolute indication for removal in the extremities.106 After hardware removal, the bone is managed by either external fixation or replacement of the hardware.30 Location plays an important role in the salvage of exposed hardware. In knee replacement, the rate of simultaneous removal and closure ranges from 76% to 94%, whereas the incidence of spinal hardware is much lower, with reported incidence of 0% to 12%.30 The morbidity the patient faces from the removal versus salvage of the hardware and the alternatives for treatment are important factors in the decision-making process. Preservation of the hardware in the spinal column is preferred management due to a lack of therapeutic alternatives for maintaining fusion and stability.

The management of CMF fractures may be considered differently from extremity fractures. This is because the face has a watershed blood supply and is less susceptible to vascular compromise; whereas the extremities are reliant upon major vessels, which may become damaged during trauma or after diabetes or from peripheral vascular disease. This anatomic difference could account for why hardware infections in the CMF region are much lower than what is observed in the extremities (5%–15% in CMF fractures vs 5%–50% in the extremities).10,72,79,107–111 It also provides a rationale for why CMF hardware infection can be treated differently than extremity hardware infections.107 This is corroborated by our meta-analysis where we found no significant difference between removing hardware versus leaving hardware in situ in cases of hardware infections.

An interesting point arises when considering how to best treat unstable fractures in the CMF region. In the extremities, unstable fractures are treated by early hardware removal. If removal of the hardware results in an unstable extremity, an external fixator device can be used to reestablish axial stability.112 Berkes et al113 studied 121 patients in whom postoperative wound infections with positive intraoperative cultures had developed within 6 weeks after internal fixation of acute fractures in the extremities. In their study, 87 (71%) patients had fracture union with operative debridement, hardware retention, culture-specific antibiotic treatment, and suppression. Thirty-one (36%) of those 87 infections were in patients who eventually underwent hardware removal after radiographic union was achieved; the indication for removal was symptomatic hardware in 5 cases and recurrence of infection in the remaining 26. At the time of the most recent follow-up, all infections had resolved after hardware removal and further treatment with culture-specific antibiotic therapy. The overall rate of failure was 29%. One infection resulted in death, 1 resulted in chronic osteomyelitis, 7 necessitated amputation, and 27 resulted in revision or fusion which can include replacement or external fixation. In 4 cases, the hardware was removed during the initial debridement. Although external fixation is an option for infected CMF hardware and it has been applied, it is impractical and may significantly interfere with a patient’s quality of life.30,106,112,114,115 Moreover, from our review, it does not seem to be necessary. For unstable CMF fractures with infected hardware, the hardware should be removed, bone debrided, and reapproximated, and new hardware can be replaced internally.101–105,107,116–123

Here we propose an algorithm for managing CMF hardware infection (Fig. 3). If hardware is exposed or thought to be infected, one should determine if the bone is healed or if there is a nonunion or osteomyelitis. If the bone is nontender, the bone edges are approximated on physical examination and x-ray, and the ESR and CRP are normal then the hardware does not need to be removed. Attention should be given to soft tissue healing. However, if the bone is tender, an obvious gap is present on physical examination or x-ray, or the ESR or CRP is elevated, then the hardware should be removed, the necrotic bone debrided, the hardware internally replaced, and bone grafting. Antibiotics should also be given. The intermediate period poses the most significant challenge in terms of decision making; in the early stages, hardware should be preserved. Soft tissue is the premium. In the later time frame, with a likely nonunion, bone grafting would be required with removal and exchange of fixation. Medical management should be optimized, including cessation of tobacco products. If in the unusual circumstance the infection does not resolve after repeat ORIF, we recommend repeat debridement, hardware removal, and application of an external fixator (Fig. 3). Unusual causes of nonunion and osteomyelitis should be sought.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

Hardware infection after CMF of facial fractures is rare. On the basis of a systematic review of the literature and analysis of the orthopedic literature for extremity fractures, we propose that CMF hardware infections or exposures can safely be managed by preservation of internal fixation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Regev E, Shiff JS, Kiss A, et al. Internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125: 1753–1760.
2. Danda AK. Comparison of a single noncompression miniplate versus 2 noncompression miniplates in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 1565–1567.
3. Hermund NU, Hillerup S, Kofod T, et al. Effect of early or delayed treatment upon healing of mandibular fractures: a systematic literature review. Dent Traumatol. 2008; 24: 22–26.
4. Andreasen JO, Storgard Jensen S, Kofod T, et al. Open or closed repositioning of mandibular fractures: is there a difference in healing outcome? A systematic review. Dent Traumatol. 2008; 24: 17–21.
5. Champy M, Lodde JP, Schmitt R, et al. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg. 1978; 6: 14–21.
6. Raveh J, Vuillemin T, Ladrach K, et al. Plate osteosynthesis of 367 mandibular fractures. The unrestricted indication for the intraoral approach. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1987; 15: 244–253.
7. Chalya PL, McHembe M, Mabula JB, et al. Etiological spectrum, injury characteristics and treatment outcome of maxillofacial injuries in a Tanzanian teaching hospital. J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2011; 5: 7.
8. Brasileiro BF, Passeri LA. Epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures in Brazil: a 5-year prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102: 28–34.
9. Schortinghuis J, Bos RR, Vissink A. Complications of internal fixation of maxillofacial fractures with microplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 57: 130–134; discussion 135.
10. Hanson J, Lovald S, Cowgill I, et al. National hardware removal rate associated with internal fixation of facial fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 1152–1158.
11. Newman LG, Waller J, Palestro CJ, et al. Unsuspected osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers. Diagnosis and monitoring by leukocyte scanning with indium in 111 oxyquinoline. JAMA. 1991; 266: 1246–1251.
12. Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, O’Connell JX, et al. Prospective analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81: 672–683.
13. Lachiewicz PF, Rogers GD, Thomason HC. Aspiration of the hip joint before revision total hip arthroplasty. Clinical and laboratory factors influencing attainment of a positive culture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78: 749–754.
14. Macias JD, Haller J, Frodel JL Jr. Comparative postoperative infection rates in midfacial trauma using intermaxillary fixation, wire fixation, and rigid internal fixation implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993; 119: 308–309.
15. Lesavoy MA, Dubrow TJ, Wackym PA, et al. Muscle-flap coverage of exposed endoprostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989; 83: 90–99.
16. Hochberg J, Ardenghy M, Yuen J, et al. Muscle and musculocutaneous flap coverage of exposed spinal fusion devices. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 102: 385–389; discussion 390-2.
17. Johnson DP, Bannister GC. The outcome of infected arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986; 68: 289–291.
18. Kutscha-Lissberg F, Hopf KF. [Why do osteosyntheses fail? The problem with biomechanics and biology]. Unfallchirurg. 2003; 106: 708–721.
19. Schaefer EHI, Caterson EJ. Antibiotic selection for open reduction internal fixation of mandible fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2013; 24: 85–88.
20. Ghanem WA, Elhayes KA, Saad K. The management of unstable oblique infected mandibular fractures with a 2.3 mm mandibular osteosynthesis reconstruction bone plate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011; 39: 600–605.
21. Knepil GJ, Loukota RA. Outcomes of prophylactic antibiotics following surgery for zygomatic bone fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010; 38: 131–133.
22. Rallis G, Mourouzis C, Papakosta V, et al. Reasons for miniplate removal following maxillofacial trauma: a 4-year study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006; 34: 435–439.
23. Maloney PL, Lincoln RE, Coyne CP. A protocol for the management of compound mandibular fractures based on the time from injury to treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59: 879–884; discussion 885-6.
24. Heit JM, Stevens MR, Jeffords K. Comparison of ceftriaxone with penicillin for antibiotic prophylaxis for compound mandible fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997; 83: 423–426.
25. Lee HB, Oh JS, Kim SG, et al. Comparison of titanium and biodegradable miniplates for fixation of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 2065–2069.
26. Miles BA, Potter JK, Ellis E 3rd. The efficacy of postoperative antibiotic regimens in the open treatment of mandibular fractures: a prospective randomized trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64: 576–582.
27. Kim YK, Kim SG. Treatment of mandible fractures using bioabsorbable plates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 110: 25–31; discussion 32-3.
28. Rightmire E, Zurakowski D, Vrahas M. Acute infections after fracture repair: management with hardware in place. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466: 466–472.
29. Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011; 42: 551–555.
30. Viol A, Pradka SP, Baumeister SP, et al. Soft-tissue defects and exposed hardware: a review of indications for soft-tissue reconstruction and hardware preservation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 123: 1256–1263.
31. Watson JT. Fractures of the forearm and elbow. Clin Sports Med. 1990; 9: 59–83.
32. Gault DT, Quaba A. Is flap cover of exposed metalwork worthwhile? A review of 28 cases. Br J Plast Surg. 1986; 39: 505–509.
33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010; 8: 336–341.
34. Slezak S. Discussion: ASPS clinical practice guideline summary on reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 130: 790–791.
35. Kalliainen LK. ASPS clinical practice guideline summary on reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 130: 785–789.
36. Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Brozek J, et al. The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 736–742.
37. Kwon YD, Lee DW, Choi BJ, et al. Salvation for hardware failure of resorbable fixation plates in bilateral mandibular angle fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2012; 23: 1192–1194.
38. Hsu E, Crombie A, To P, et al. Manual reduction of mandibular fractures before internal fixation leads to shorter operative duration and equivalent outcomes when compared with reduction with intermaxillary fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: 1622–1626.
39. Laverick S, Siddappa P, Wong H, et al. Intraoral external oblique ridge compared with transbuccal lateral cortical plate fixation for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular angle: prospective randomised trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 50: 344–349.
40. Goyal M, Marya K, Chawla S, et al. Mandibular osteosynthesis: a comparative evaluation of two different fixation systems using 2.0 mm titanium miniplates and 3-D locking plates. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011; 10: 32–37.
41. Bindra S, Choudhary K, Sharma P, et al. Management of mandibular sub condylar and condylar fractures using retromandibular approach and assessment of associated surgical complications. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2010; 9: 355–362.
42. Agarwal M, Mohammad S, Singh RK, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bite force in 2-mm locking plates versus 2-mm standard plates in treatment of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 1995–2000.
43. Ellis E 3rd. A prospective study of 3 treatment methods for isolated fractures of the mandibular angle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 2743–2754.
44. Bayat M, Garajei A, Ghorbani K, et al. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using a single bioresorbable miniplate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 1573–1577.
45. Jain MK, Manjunath KS, Bhagwan BK, et al. Comparison of 3-dimensional and standard miniplate fixation in the management of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 1568–1572.
46. Bhatt K, Roychoudhury A, Bhutia O, et al. Equivalence randomized controlled trial of bioresorbable versus titanium miniplates in treatment of mandibular fracture: a pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 1842–1848.
47. Kharkar VR, Rudagi BM, Halli R, et al. Comparison of the modified lateral orbitotomy approach and modified hemicoronal approach in the treatment of unstable malunions of zygomatic complex fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109: 504–509.
48. Trost O, Trouilloud P, Malka G. Open reduction and internal fixation of low subcondylar fractures of mandible through high cervical transmasseteric anteroparotid approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 2446–2451.
49. Seemann R, Frerich B, Muller S, et al. Comparison of locking and nonlocking plates in the treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: 328–334.
50. Marx RE, Cillo JE, Broumand V, et al. Outcome analysis of mandibular condylar replacements in tumor and trauma reconstruction: a prospective analysis of 131 cases with long-term follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66: 2515–2523.
51. Pigadas N, Whitley SP, Roberts SA, et al. A randomized controlled trial on cross-infection control in maxillofacial trauma surgery: a comparison of intermaxillary fixation techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 37: 716–722.
52. Alagoz MS, Uysal AC, Sensoz O. An alternative method in mandibular fracture treatment: bone graft use instead of a plate. J Craniofac Surg. 2008; 19: 411–420.
53. Ferretti C. A prospective trial of poly-L-lactic/polyglycolic acid co-polymer plates and screws for internal fixation of mandibular fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 37: 242–248.
54. von Bremen J, Schafer D, Kater W, et al. Complications during mandibular midline distraction. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78: 20–24.
55. Zix J, Lieger O, Iizuka T. Use of straight and curved 3-dimensional titanium miniplates for fracture fixation at the mandibular angle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 1758–1763.
56. Kfir E, Kfir V, Kaluski E. Immediate bone augmentation after infected tooth extraction using titanium membranes. J Oral Implantol. 2007; 33: 133–138.
57. Al-Assaf DA, Maki MH. Multiple and comminuted mandibular fractures: treatment outlines in adverse medical conditions in Iraq. J Craniofac Surg. 2007; 18: 606–612.
58. Kim Y, Smith J, Sercarz JA, et al. Fixation of mandibular osteotomies: comparison of locking and nonlocking hardware. Head Neck. 2007; 29: 453–457.
59. Mavili ME, Canter HI, Tuncbilek G. Treatment of noncomminuted zygomatic fractures with percutaneous screw reduction and fixation. J Craniofac Surg. 2007; 18: 67–73.
60. Laughlin RM, Block MS, Wilk R, et al. Resorbable plates for the fixation of mandibular fractures: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 89–96.
61. Siddiqui A, Markose G, Moos KF, et al. One miniplate versus two in the management of mandibular angle fractures: a prospective randomised study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 45: 223–225.
62. Bolourian R, Lazow S, Berger J. Transoral 2.0-mm miniplate fixation of mandibular fractures plus 2 weeks’ maxillomandibular fixation: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 60: 167–170.
63. Kaplan BA, Hoard MA, Park SS. Immediate mobilization following fixation of mandible fractures: a prospective, randomized study. Laryngoscope. 2001; 111: 1520–1524.
64. Kim YK, Nam KW. Treatment of mandible fractures using low-profile titanium miniplates: preliminary study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001; 108: 38–43.
65. Schug T, Rodemer H, Neupert W, et al. Treatment of complex mandibular fractures using titanium mesh. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2000; 28: 235–237.
66. Ellis E, McFadden D, Simon P, et al. Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58: 950–958.
67. Utley DS, Utley JD, Koch RJ, et al. Direct bonded orthodontic brackets for maxillomandibular fixation. Laryngoscope. 1998; 108: 1338–1345.
68. Jaques B, Richter M, Arza A. Treatment of mandibular fractures with rigid osteosynthesis: using the AO system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55: 1402–1406; discussion 1406-7.
69. Bessho K, Iizuka T, Murakami K. A bioabsorbable poly-L-lactide miniplate and screw system for osteosynthesis in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997; 55: 941–945;discussion 945-6.
70. Kuriakose MA, Fardy M, Sirikumara M, et al. A comparative review of 266 mandibular fractures with internal fixation using rigid (AO/ASIF) plates or mini-plates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34: 315–321.
71. Bouwman JP, Husak A, Putnam GD, et al. Screw fixation following bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement–complications in 700 consecutive cases. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 33: 231–234.
72. Zachariades N, Papademetriou I. Complications of treatment of mandibular fractures with compression plates. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995; 79: 150–153.
73. Terris DJ, Lalakea ML, Tuffo KM, et al. Mandible fracture repair: specific indications for newer techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994; 111: 751–757.
74. Ellis E, Walker L. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two noncompression miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 1032–1036; discussion 1036–7.
75. Nakamura S, Takenoshita Y, Oka M. Complications of miniplate osteosynthesis for mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 233–238; discussion 238-9.
76. Chu L, Gussack GS, Muller T. A treatment protocol for mandible fractures. J Trauma. 1994; 36: 48–52.
77. Ellis E, Sinn DP. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two 2.4-mm dynamic compression plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 51: 969–973.
78. Ellis E. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using the AO reconstruction plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 51: 250–254; discussion 255.
79. Francel TJ, Birely BC, Ringelman PR, et al. The fate of plates and screws after facial fracture reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992; 90: 568–573.
80. Ellis E, Karas N. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two mini dynamic compression plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992; 50: 958–963.
81. Koury M, Ellis E 3rd. Rigid internal fixation for the treatment of infected mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992; 50: 434–443; discussion 443–4.
82. Iizuka T, Lindqvist C. Rigid internal fixation of mandibular fractures. An analysis of 270 fractures treated using the AO/ASIF method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992; 21: 65–69.
83. Freitag V, Hell B, Fischer H. Experience with AO reconstruction plates after partial mandibular resection involving its continuity. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1991; 19: 191–198.
84. Iizuka T, Lindqvist C, Hallikainen D, et al. Infection after rigid internal fixation of mandibular fractures: a clinical and radiologic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991; 49: 585–593.
85. Widmark G, Kahnberg KE. Use of miniplates in the treatment of jaw fractures. Swed Dent J. 1991; 15: 265–270.
86. Wald RM, Abemayor E, Zemplenyi J, et al. The transoral treatment of mandibular fractures using noncompression miniplates: a prospective study. Ann Plast Surg. 1988; 20: 409–413.
87. Johansson B, Krekmanov L, Thomsson M. Miniplate osteosynthesis of infected mandibular fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988; 16: 22–27.
88. Yerit KC, Hainich S, Turhani D, et al. Stability of biodegradable implants in treatment of mandibular fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 115: 1863–1870.
89. Collins CP, Pirinjian-Leonard G, Tolas A, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing 2.0-mm locking plates to 2.0-mm standard plates in treatment of mandible fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62: 1392–1395.
90. Ylikontiola L, Sundqvuist K, Sandor GK, et al. Self-reinforced bioresorbable poly-L/DL-lactide [SR-P(L/DL)LA] 70/30 miniplates and miniscrews are reliable for fixation of anterior mandibular fractures: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97: 312–317.
91. Gellrich NC, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Otero-Cepeda XL, et al. Comparative study of locking plates in mandibular reconstruction after ablative tumor surgery: THORP versus UniLOCK system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62: 186–193.
92. Bishop JA, Palanca AA, Bellino MJ, et al. Assessment of compromised fracture healing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012; 20: 273–282.
93. Perlman MH, Thordarson DB. Ankle fusion in a high risk population: an assessment of nonunion risk factors. Foot Ankle Int. 1999; 20: 491–496.
94. Frey C, Halikus NM, Vu-Rose T, et al. A review of ankle arthrodesis: predisposing factors to nonunion. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15: 581–584.
95. Nahabedian MY, Orlando JC, Delanois RE, et al. Salvage procedures for complex soft tissue defects of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 119–124.
96. Prasarn ML, Ahn J, Achor T, et al. Management of infected femoral nonunions with a single-staged protocol utilizing internal fixation. Injury. 2009; 40: 1220–1225.
97. Jain AK, Sinha S. Infected nonunion of the long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 57–65.
98. Mader JT, Ortiz M, Calhoun JH. Update on the diagnosis and management of osteomyelitis. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1996; 13: 701–724.
99. Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Diabetic foot infections: stepwise medical and surgical management. Int Wound J. 2004; 1: 123–132.
100. Gosselin RA, Roberts I, Gillespie WJ. Antibiotics for preventing infection in open limb fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; CD003764.
101. Meadows SE, Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ. Posttraumatic tibial osteomyelitis: diagnosis, classification, and treatment. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1993; 52: 11–16.
102. Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. J Orthop Trauma. 2000; 14: 529–533.
103. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W. Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with fracture-fixation devices. Injury. 2006; 37 (suppl 2): S59–S66.
104. Kindsfater K, Jonassen EA. Osteomyelitis in grade II and III open tibia fractures with late debridement. J Orthop Trauma. 1995; 9: 121–127.
105. Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, et al. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair Regen. 2003; 11 (suppl 1): S1–S28.
106. Budny PJ, Fix RJ. Salvage of prosthetic grafts and joints in the lower extremity. Clin Plast Surg. 1991; 18: 583–591.
107. Clifford RP, Lyons TJ, Webb JK. Complications of external fixation of open fractures of the tibia. Injury. 1987; 18: 174–176.
108. Ho CJ, Huang HT, Chen CH, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of acute intra-articular displaced calcaneal fractures: a retrospective analysis of surgical timing and infection rates. Injury. 2013; 44: 1007–1010.
109. Dy CJ, Little MT, Berkes MB, et al. Meta-analysis of re-operation, nonunion, and infection after open reduction and internal fixation of patella fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012; 73: 928–932.
110. Wijdicks FJ, Houwert RM, Millett PJ, et al. Systematic review of complications after intramedullary fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Can J Surg. 2013; 56: 58–64.
111. Vaienti L, Di Matteo A, Gazzola R, et al. First results with the immediate reconstructive strategy for internal hardware exposure in non-united fractures of the distal third of the leg: case series and literature review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012; 7: 30.
112. Nieminen H, Kuokkanen H, Tukiainen E, et al. Free flap reconstructions of tibial fractures complicated after internal fixation. J Trauma. 1995; 38: 660–664.
113. Berkes M, Obremskey WT, Scannell B, et al. Maintenance of hardware after early postoperative infection following fracture internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92: 823–828.
114. Dumanian GA, Ondra SL, Liu J, et al. Muscle flap salvage of spine wounds with soft tissue defects or infection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28: 1203–1211.
115. Ueng WN, Shih CH. Management of infected tibial intramedullary nailing using an organized treatment protocol. J Formos Med Assoc. 1992; 91: 879–885.
116. Bohm E, Josten C. What’s new in exogenous osteomyelitis? Pathol Res Pract. 1992; 188: 254–258.
117. Anthony JP, Mathes SJ, Alpert BS. The muscle flap in the treatment of chronic lower extremity osteomyelitis: results in patients over 5 years after treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991; 88: 311–318.
118. Clifford RP, Beauchamp CG, Kellam JF, et al. Plate fixation of open fractures of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988; 70: 644–648.
119. Etter C, Burri C, Claes L, et al. Treatment by external fixation of open fractures associated with severe soft tissue damage of the leg. Biomechanical principles and clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983; 80–88.
120. Lee J. Efficacy of cultures in the management of open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; 71–75.
121. Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J, Moore TM. Considerations in reducing the infection rate in open tibial fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983; 36–41.
122. Tsiridis E, Upadhyay N, Giannoudis P. Molecular aspects of fracture healing: which are the important molecules? Injury. 2007; 38 (suppl 1): S11–S25.
123. Buckwalter JA, Glimcher MJ, Cooper RR, et al. Bone biology. I: Structure, blood supply, cells, matrix, and mineralization. Instr Course Lect. 1996; 45: 371–386.
Keywords:

hardware; facial fracture; craniomaxillofacial trauma; infection; osteomyelitis; nonunion

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.