Current therapeutic strategies of heterotopic ossification – a survey amongst orthopaedic and trauma departments in Germany

Table 2 Indication and techniques for surgical HO removal; HO = heterotopic ossification

		Germany
	University (trauma)	University (orthopaedic)	Non-university hospitals	Total
Indications for surgery
Pain at rest
Insignificant	10 %	0 %	0 %	3 %
Of little importance	40 %	17 %	22 %	25 %
Important	35 %	57 %	67 %	55 %
Very important	15 %	26 %	11 %	17 %
Pain during joint movement
Insignificant	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
Of little importance	11 %	0 %	0 %	3 %
Important	53 %	64 %	69 %	64 %
Very important	37 %	36 %	31 %	33 %
Reduced ROM of affected joint
Insignificant	0 %	0 %	0 %	0 %
Of little importance	5 %	9 %	3 %	5 %
Important	20 %	43 %	56 %	43 %
Very important	75 %	48 %	41 %	52 %
Increase of HO formation
Insignificant	16 %	13 %	14 %	14 %
Of little importance	26 %	39 %	36 %	34 %
Important	42 %	44 %	28 %	37 %
Very important	16 %	4 %	22 %	14 %
Active HO formation in scintigraphy
Insignificant	21 %	4 %	14 %	13 %
Of little importance	63 %	61 %	39 %	50 %
Important	16 %	26 %	33 %	28 %
Very important	0 %	9 %	14 %	9 %
Techniques of surgical excision
Complete excision of HO formation
Insignificant	5 %	0 %	3 %	3 %
Of little importance	40 %	36 %	30 %	34 %
Important	45 %	55 %	53 %	51 %
Very important	10 %	9 %	14 %	12 %
Excision of ROM-limiting HO
Insignificant	5 %	0 %	2 %	3 %
Of little importance	15 %	30 %	23 %	22 %
Important	30 %	48 %	46 %	43 %
Very important	50 %	22 %	29 %	32 %
Tissue interposition after HO removal
Insignificant	45 %	13 %	25 %	27 %
Of little importance	40 %	70 %	61 %	60 %
Important	10 %	17 %	14 %	13 %
Very important	5 %	0 %	0 %	0 %

ISSN: 1471-2474