Incidence of Hardware Removal Following Volar Plate Fixation of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity174
PURPOSE: To assess the risk of @entity174 and to determine the incidence of hardware removal. METHODS: We searched the surgical database of 5 attending hand surgeons at a single institution from 2009 to 2014. All @entity1 who had undergone volar plate fixation were included. @entity1 were excluded if they underwent an alternate form of fixation, had less than 1 year of follow-up, or could not be reached for follow-up. Postoperative radiographs were examined for Soong grade, plate distance to the critical line, and plate distance to the volar rim. If @entity1 had hardware removed, the reason for plate removal was identified. For all @entity1 who did not have documented hardware removal at our institution, we placed a follow-up call to determine whether they had hardware removed elsewhere. RESULTS: A total of 517 @entity1 underwent volar plate fixation, 143 of whom did not have their hardware removed at our institution but could not be reached for follow-up. Of the remaining 374 @entity1 , 37 (10%) had hardware removed. For group 1 (hardware retained), Soong grades were 13% grade 0, 85% grade 1, and 2% grade 2. For group 2 (hardware removed) the proportions were 11%, 76%, and 5%, respectively, and 8% undetermined. Mean plate distance to the critical line was significantly greater for group 2 (1.9 mm) compared with group 1  (1.2 mm). Mean plate distance to the volar rim did not differ (5.1  mm vs 5.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hardware removal in our series was 10%. The vast majority of @entity1 had Soong grade 1 prominence. @entity1 who had hardware removed had a greater plate prominence volar to the critical line. Plate distance to the volar rim was not associated with removal. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.
