Higher Reoperation Rates in Planned, Staged Treatment of Open Fractures Compared with Fix-and-Close: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Yohan Jang,Roman M Natoli,Gregory J Della Rocca,Robert D Zura,Kevin D Phelps,G David Potter,John A Scolaro,Mark J Gage,Augustine M Saiz,Nathan N O'Hara,Christina A Stennett,Sheila Sprague,Gerard P Slobogean,
{"title":"Higher Reoperation Rates in Planned, Staged Treatment of Open Fractures Compared with Fix-and-Close: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.","authors":"Yohan Jang,Roman M Natoli,Gregory J Della Rocca,Robert D Zura,Kevin D Phelps,G David Potter,John A Scolaro,Mark J Gage,Augustine M Saiz,Nathan N O'Hara,Christina A Stennett,Sheila Sprague,Gerard P Slobogean,","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nInitial surgical management of Gustilo-Anderson type-I to IIIA open fractures varies from surgical fixation of the fracture with immediate closure of the traumatic wound to various combinations of staged fracture and wound management. The decision to choose staged management has historically been based on wound contamination and the severity of the open fracture. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of surgical site infection (SSI), wound complication, nonunion, and 1-year reoperation between patients with type-I to IIIA open fractures who underwent fix-and-close treatment and those who underwent planned, staged treatment.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis is a secondary analysis of participants who were enrolled in the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE-Open studies, excluding those with type-IIIB and IIIC open fractures. Participants were divided into fix-and-close or planned, staged groups and were matched using propensity scores that were computed with multiple variables, including patient and injury characteristics. Associations between treatment type and outcomes were analyzed.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 3,170 participants (staged, 872: 70% White, 20% Black, and 10% other or unknown race; fix-and-close, 2,298: 62% White, 21% Black, and 17% other) with Gustilo-Anderson type-I to IIIA open fractures were identified. Eight hundred and thirty-six participants who underwent planned, staged treatment were propensity score-matched to 836 participants who underwent fix-and-close treatment. Staged treatment was significantly associated with increased odds of deep SSI within 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15 to 3.47]; p = 0.01) and reoperation specifically for infection within 1 year (OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.06 to 2.04]; p = 0.02) but was not associated with increased odds of wound dehiscence (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.49]; p = 0.57), wound necrosis or failure of the wound to heal (OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.25]; p = 0.21), reoperation requiring any free or local flap coverage (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.68]; p = 0.89), or reoperation for delayed union or nonunion (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.83]; p = 0.14).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nFix-and-close treatment of open fractures of type IIIA and lower was associated with decreased odds of deep SSI within 90 days and reoperation for infection within 1 year without an increased risk of wound complications or nonunion and may be considered even in fractures with embedded contamination provided that adequate debridement is performed.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"97 1","pages":"51-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Initial surgical management of Gustilo-Anderson type-I to IIIA open fractures varies from surgical fixation of the fracture with immediate closure of the traumatic wound to various combinations of staged fracture and wound management. The decision to choose staged management has historically been based on wound contamination and the severity of the open fracture. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of surgical site infection (SSI), wound complication, nonunion, and 1-year reoperation between patients with type-I to IIIA open fractures who underwent fix-and-close treatment and those who underwent planned, staged treatment. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of participants who were enrolled in the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE-Open studies, excluding those with type-IIIB and IIIC open fractures. Participants were divided into fix-and-close or planned, staged groups and were matched using propensity scores that were computed with multiple variables, including patient and injury characteristics. Associations between treatment type and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 3,170 participants (staged, 872: 70% White, 20% Black, and 10% other or unknown race; fix-and-close, 2,298: 62% White, 21% Black, and 17% other) with Gustilo-Anderson type-I to IIIA open fractures were identified. Eight hundred and thirty-six participants who underwent planned, staged treatment were propensity score-matched to 836 participants who underwent fix-and-close treatment. Staged treatment was significantly associated with increased odds of deep SSI within 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15 to 3.47]; p = 0.01) and reoperation specifically for infection within 1 year (OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.06 to 2.04]; p = 0.02) but was not associated with increased odds of wound dehiscence (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.49]; p = 0.57), wound necrosis or failure of the wound to heal (OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.25]; p = 0.21), reoperation requiring any free or local flap coverage (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.68]; p = 0.89), or reoperation for delayed union or nonunion (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.83]; p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS Fix-and-close treatment of open fractures of type IIIA and lower was associated with decreased odds of deep SSI within 90 days and reoperation for infection within 1 year without an increased risk of wound complications or nonunion and may be considered even in fractures with embedded contamination provided that adequate debridement is performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
与固定缝合相比,计划、分期治疗开放性骨折的再手术率更高:倾向评分匹配分析
背景Gustilo-Anderson i型至IIIA型开放性骨折的初始手术治疗方法不同,从手术固定骨折并立即闭合创伤创面到分期骨折和创面处理的各种组合。选择分期治疗的决定历来是基于伤口污染和开放性骨折的严重程度。本研究的目的是比较i型至IIIA型开放性骨折患者接受固定缝合治疗和接受计划分阶段治疗的手术部位感染(SSI)、伤口并发症、不愈合和1年再手术的发生率。方法:本研究是一项二次分析,纳入了水性prep和prep - open研究的参与者,不包括iiib型和IIIC型开放性骨折患者。参与者被分为固定闭合组或计划分阶段组,并使用包括患者和损伤特征在内的多个变量计算的倾向得分进行匹配。分析治疗类型与结果之间的关系。结果共3170名参与者(分阶段,872名:70%白人,20%黑人,10%其他或未知种族;确诊为Gustilo-Anderson i型至IIIA型开放性骨折的2,298例(白人占62%,黑人占21%,其他占17%)。836名接受有计划、分阶段治疗的参与者与836名接受固定和闭合治疗的参与者的倾向得分相匹配。分期治疗与90天内深部SSI发生率增加显著相关(优势比[OR] 2.0[95%可信区间(CI), 1.15至3.47];p = 0.01),特别是感染1年内再次手术(OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.06 ~ 2.04];p = 0.02),但与伤口裂开的几率增加无关(OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.49 ~ 1.49];p = 0.57),伤口坏死或伤口愈合失败(or, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.83 ~ 2.25];p = 0.21),再次手术需要任何游离或局部皮瓣覆盖(or, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.55至1.68];p = 0.89),或延迟愈合或不愈合的再次手术(or, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.92至1.83];P = 0.14)。结论:IIIA型及以下开放性骨折的固定闭合治疗与90天内深部SSI发生率和1年内感染再手术发生率的降低相关,且无伤口并发症或不愈合的风险增加,如果进行了充分的清创,甚至可以考虑对有嵌入污染的骨折进行治疗。证据水平:治疗性二级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信