Primary Closure of External Fixator Pin Sites is Safe After Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
J. Brodell, Brittany Haws, Jeffrey B. Shroff, Steven Karnyski, Samantha Hoffman, Sandeep P. Soin, Catherine A. Humphrey, J. Gorczyca, John P. Ketz
{"title":"Primary Closure of External Fixator Pin Sites is Safe After Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery","authors":"J. Brodell, Brittany Haws, Jeffrey B. Shroff, Steven Karnyski, Samantha Hoffman, Sandeep P. Soin, Catherine A. Humphrey, J. Gorczyca, John P. Ketz","doi":"10.1097/bot.0000000000002823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n To determine if rates of pin site infection and surgical site infection amongst patients managed with primary closure after external fixator removal were similar to those allowed to heal secondarily.\n \n \n \n \n Design: Retrospective cohort\n \n \n \n Urban/Suburban Academic Level I Trauma Center\n \n \n \n Patients who had received a lower extremity external fixator for provisional management prior to definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures were included with pin site wounds closed primarily or allowed to heal by secondary intention.\n \n \n \n The rate of pin tract infection and surgical site infection following primary closure of external fixator pin sites relative to patients whose pin sites were allowed to heal via secondary intention. .\n \n \n \n 256 patients were evaluated, 143 patients (406 pin sites) in the primary closure group and 113 patients (340 in sites) in the secondary closure group. The average age was 49 ± 16 years. Sixty-five percent of included patients were male. There was no difference in pin tract infections between cohorts (Primary=0.5%, Secondary=1.5%, p=0.26). External fixator duration in the primary closure group was 11.5 ± 8.4 days, and 13.0 ± 8.1 days in the secondary closure group (p=0.15). There was a greater rate of surgical site infections in the secondary intention cohort (15.9% vs 7.7%, p=0.047).\n \n \n \n There was no difference in pin site infection rate after primary pin site closure relative to patients who were allowed to heal via secondary intention. Furthermore, there was a lower rate of surgical site infection after primary closure. These results challenge the dogma of secondary closure for ex fix pin sites, suggesting that debridement and primary closure is a safe option for management of external fixator pin sites, and may impart benefit in decreasing infection risk.\n \n \n \n Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\n","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0000000000002823","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To determine if rates of pin site infection and surgical site infection amongst patients managed with primary closure after external fixator removal were similar to those allowed to heal secondarily. Design: Retrospective cohort Urban/Suburban Academic Level I Trauma Center Patients who had received a lower extremity external fixator for provisional management prior to definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures were included with pin site wounds closed primarily or allowed to heal by secondary intention. The rate of pin tract infection and surgical site infection following primary closure of external fixator pin sites relative to patients whose pin sites were allowed to heal via secondary intention. . 256 patients were evaluated, 143 patients (406 pin sites) in the primary closure group and 113 patients (340 in sites) in the secondary closure group. The average age was 49 ± 16 years. Sixty-five percent of included patients were male. There was no difference in pin tract infections between cohorts (Primary=0.5%, Secondary=1.5%, p=0.26). External fixator duration in the primary closure group was 11.5 ± 8.4 days, and 13.0 ± 8.1 days in the secondary closure group (p=0.15). There was a greater rate of surgical site infections in the secondary intention cohort (15.9% vs 7.7%, p=0.047). There was no difference in pin site infection rate after primary pin site closure relative to patients who were allowed to heal via secondary intention. Furthermore, there was a lower rate of surgical site infection after primary closure. These results challenge the dogma of secondary closure for ex fix pin sites, suggesting that debridement and primary closure is a safe option for management of external fixator pin sites, and may impart benefit in decreasing infection risk. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
创伤骨科手术后初次封闭外固定器针脚部位是安全的
目的:确定在拔除外固定器后进行初次闭合处理的患者中,针脚部位感染率和手术部位感染率是否与允许二次愈合的患者相似。 设计:回顾性队列 城市/郊区学术一级创伤中心 在下肢骨折最终固定前接受过下肢外固定器临时处理的患者,其针扎部位伤口是主要闭合还是允许二次愈合。 与通过二次意向愈合的患者相比,初次闭合外固定器销钉部位后的销钉道感染率和手术部位感染率。. 共对 256 名患者进行了评估,其中 143 名患者(406 个针脚部位)属于初次封闭组,113 名患者(340 个针脚部位)属于二次封闭组。平均年龄为 49±16 岁。65%的患者为男性。两组患者的针道感染率没有差异(初级=0.5%,中级=1.5%,P=0.26)。初次闭合组的外固定器持续时间为(11.5 ± 8.4)天,二次闭合组为(13.0 ± 8.1)天(P=0.15)。二次意向组的手术部位感染率更高(15.9% vs 7.7%,P=0.047)。 与通过二次意向愈合的患者相比,初次针孔部位封闭后的针孔部位感染率没有差异。此外,初次封闭后的手术部位感染率较低。这些结果对二次封闭外固定器针脚部位的教条提出了挑战,表明清创和初次封闭是处理外固定器针脚部位的一个安全选择,并可能在降低感染风险方面带来益处。 治疗级别 III。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信