Skip to main content

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

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

   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 %
\