The Benefits of Implant Removal from the Foot and Ankle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following successful orthopaedic surgical procedures, implant removal is generally not necessary or recommended. However, patients with pain related to implants may benefit from this elective procedure. The foot and ankle may be more symptomatic from retained implants because of weight-bearing activities, shoe wear, and limited soft-tissue cushioning. In such cases, implant removal may provide good and reliable relief of symptoms. METHODS: A prospective study of sixty-nine patients who underwent elective removal of symptomatic implants from the foot and ankle was undertaken to evaluate the patients' pain experience. The short-form McGill pain questionnaire was administered preoperatively and six weeks postoperatively. Postoperatively, patients were also asked whether they would repeat the procedure and whether they were satisfied with the results. RESULTS: Patients reported significantly less pain following the procedure, with the average rating of pain on the visual analog scale (VAS) decreasing from 3.06 to 0.88 and the average rating of present pain intensity decreasing from 2.03 to 0.58 (p < 0.05 for both). Sixty-five percent of the patients reported no pain on either measure at six weeks postoperatively. Preoperative pain was correlated with postoperative pain (r = 0.24 and p < 0.05 for VAS, and r = 0.16 and p > 0.05 for present pain intensity).With the small sample size, preoperative and postoperative pain did not show a significant difference on the basis of implant location or patient age or sex. Ninety-four percent of patients said they would repeat the procedure under the same circumstances, and 91% of patients were satisfied with the results. CONCLUSIONS: Following successful orthopaedic surgical procedures, removal of implants causing symptoms can result in pain relief and a high rate of patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".