Letter to editor regarding "Discordance between surgeon opinion and institutional policy on explant handling after hardware removal
Makaleler > Editöre Mektup · 2026
Yazarlar: Arman VAHABİ, Ali Engin DAŞTAN, Hüseyin GÜNAY, Salih Kemal AKTUĞLU
INJURY, SCI İndekslerine Giren Dergi, Uluslararası, Wos, 2026, cilt 57, ss 26-27
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112869
Özet
<p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">Dear Editor,</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">We read Naclerio et al.'s article, </span><em style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">"Discordance between surgeon opinion and institutional policy on explant handling after hardware removal</em><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);"> [</span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138325007284?via%3Dihub#bib0001" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(2, 114, 177); background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">1</a><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">]" with great interest. The article piqued our interest since we are specifically interested in the handling of explanted hardware with substantial practise of orthopaedic trauma. We hope that readers will benefit more from this article through this correspondence, which reflects our thoughts on the article and the topic it discusses.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">As Naclerio et al. also point out, there is no consensus on how explanted orthopaedic hardware should be managed. Although their study focuses on North American institutions, we believe that this issue is indeed global in scope, with possible differences in practice that vary by region and healthcare system.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">While the primary focus of Naclerio et al.'s study is surgeon preference and institutional regulations on returning of explanted hardware to patient, we believe this topic warrants further discussion. As we stated in our study [</span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138325007284?via%3Dihub#bib0002" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(2, 114, 177); background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">2</a><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">], which may have inspired the work of Naclerio et al., How the implant should be managed, whether through collection, disposal, or recycling etc. in cases where the patient does not wish to receive it or where regulations prevent this, remains a common yet underreported problem.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">We strongly believe that standardizing the currently diverse practices on the management of explanted hardware is essential for both ethical and clinical best practices, thus further research on matter could provide basis for such standardization.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">We congratulate the authors on their successful work and believe that they have made a valuable contribution to a subject with limited existing literature.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">Additionally, upon reading the article, we noticed that Elsevier’s policies, presented under the heading “Publishing Ethics [</span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138325007284?via%3Dihub#bib0003" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(2, 114, 177); background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">3</a><span style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31);">]” were included in the final section of the article as if they were part of the main text. Since this section also contains references to other sources, we recommend reviewing it to prevent potential confusion for readers</span></p><p></p>