(FIGURES AVAILABLE FROM AUTHOR ON REQUEST - UNABLE TO UPLOAD TO THIS SITE)

The two letters describing individuals' different techniques for implant removal are timely [1,2]. Routine removal with or without refit is common practice throughout the UK as implants have become widely available and popular. It is not yet clear whether introduction of Nexplanon will lead to fewer difficult removals. It is evident from these letters and conversations between clinicians that diverse and innovative approaches have evolved for fit and removal. These letters are therefore relevant as they highlight the need to recognise key principles when removing (and fitting) implants: whatever the technique it should be minimally traumatic/invasive, effective and - importantly - safe for the patient and safe for the operator. Dr Menon questions the merit of Dr Kandiyil's splinting technique for routine removal. He points out that blind introduction of the needle theoretically and unnecessarily could damage deeper structures. I would be interested to learn, in terms of these principles, what comparative advantages Dr Kandiyil's method has over the simple use of local anaesthetic and scalpel for palpable devices.

Removal of impalpable implants presents a different situation and this same technique, when used with ultrasound guidance, minimises risk to otherwise unseen structures and focuses the operating field on the precise location of the implant. It also has the advantage of bringing the implant superficially towards the skin where it is then often palpable (Figures 1 and 2).

Ultrasound-guided splinting technique therefore provides safety advantages for the patient. Having used this method for a few years I have, however, faced the challenge of identifying a technique that is 'safe' for the operator (and for this reason have been reluctant to teach the method to others). Use of a regular phlebotomy needle puts the operator at risk of injury. I have considered various needles (amniocentesis, spinal, etc.) looking for combined properties of slim but firm, suitable to penetrate arm skin, and long enough that the exposed end can be safely sheathed while operating. Most recently the flush needle pictured (Figure 3) has proved one satisfactory solution.

I am keen to learn what other devices clinicians have found safe and suitable for this use.

Splinting is just one novel practice that has been adopted. The following are examples of other developments: (1) bandages are no longer applied following implant fitting or removal, (2) fitters no longer anaesthetise along the insertion track and (3) ethyl chloride used as an alternative to lignocaine hydrochloride for fitting (not removal).

Organon convenes implant-fitting workshops but there has been to my knowledge no formal arrangement for appraisal of practice. I wonder whether it is time as a specialty for a process of bringing together experiences and methods, complete with success rates, complications, advantages/disadvantages and patient feedback with the intention of improving practice and informing training for the future. I look forward to hearing Journal readers' views on this.

References 1. Kandiyil VN. Easy method for Implanon removal [Letter]. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care 2012;38:207-208.

2. Menon K. Implanon removal technique [Letter]. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care, published online 13th August 2012.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared