Debridement Versus Simple Scrubbing of External Fixator Pin Sites.

Kansas Journal of Medicine Pub Date : 2022-10-24 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.17161/kjm.vol15.18219
Jack Nolte, Johnathan Dallman, William Tucker, Erin Christensen, Archie Heddings
{"title":"Debridement Versus Simple Scrubbing of External Fixator Pin Sites.","authors":"Jack Nolte,&nbsp;Johnathan Dallman,&nbsp;William Tucker,&nbsp;Erin Christensen,&nbsp;Archie Heddings","doi":"10.17161/kjm.vol15.18219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Irrigation and debridement of external fixator pin sites are methods utilized by some orthopedic surgeons to minimize the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing definitive internal fixation after temporization in an external fixation device. This study aimed to determine if irrigation and debridement of external fixator pin sites leads to fewer deep surgical site infections, compared to simply scrubbing the external fixator pin sites with a chlorhexidine scrub-brush.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single center retrospective cohort study was performed at a university level I trauma center. All cases in which a single surgeon removed an external fixator and followed this with definitive open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the same operative setting between October 2007 and October 2018 were reviewed. A total of 313 patients were temporized in 334 external fixators prior to ORIF and were included in the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen of the 179 Irrigation and Debridement cohort (10.0%) and 8 of the 155 Simple Scrubbing cohort (5.2%) had infections that required a return to the operating room. No statistical difference (p = 0.10) or meaningful effect size (Cohen's d = 0.18) were found between irrigation and debridement and simple scrubbing of external fixator pin sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given no significant differences were found in deep infection rates between debridement of pin sites versus simply scrubbing, it is reasonable to ask whether the time and resources required for debriding external fixator pin sites is worthwhile.</p>","PeriodicalId":17991,"journal":{"name":"Kansas Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"369-372"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/14/99/15-369.PMC9612902.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kansas Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol15.18219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Irrigation and debridement of external fixator pin sites are methods utilized by some orthopedic surgeons to minimize the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing definitive internal fixation after temporization in an external fixation device. This study aimed to determine if irrigation and debridement of external fixator pin sites leads to fewer deep surgical site infections, compared to simply scrubbing the external fixator pin sites with a chlorhexidine scrub-brush.

Methods: This single center retrospective cohort study was performed at a university level I trauma center. All cases in which a single surgeon removed an external fixator and followed this with definitive open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the same operative setting between October 2007 and October 2018 were reviewed. A total of 313 patients were temporized in 334 external fixators prior to ORIF and were included in the study.

Results: Eighteen of the 179 Irrigation and Debridement cohort (10.0%) and 8 of the 155 Simple Scrubbing cohort (5.2%) had infections that required a return to the operating room. No statistical difference (p = 0.10) or meaningful effect size (Cohen's d = 0.18) were found between irrigation and debridement and simple scrubbing of external fixator pin sites.

Conclusions: Given no significant differences were found in deep infection rates between debridement of pin sites versus simply scrubbing, it is reasonable to ask whether the time and resources required for debriding external fixator pin sites is worthwhile.

清创与单纯擦洗外固定钉部位的比较。
引言:一些骨科医生采用外固定针部位冲洗和清创的方法,以尽量减少外固定装置内固定后患者手术部位感染的风险。本研究旨在确定与单纯用洗必泰擦洗外固定针部位相比,外固定针部位的冲洗和清创是否能减少深部手术部位感染。方法:在一所大学一级创伤中心进行单中心回顾性队列研究。回顾了2007年10月至2018年10月期间,同一外科医生取出外固定架并随后进行明确切开复位内固定(ORIF)的所有病例。共有313名患者在ORIF前使用334个外固定架进行临时固定,并纳入研究。结果:179例冲洗清创组中有18例(10.0%)和155例简单擦洗组中有8例(5.2%)发生感染,需要返回手术室。冲洗和清创与简单擦洗外固定钉部位之间没有统计学差异(p = 0.10)或有意义的效应量(Cohen’s d = 0.18)。结论:考虑到针点清创与单纯擦洗在深部感染率上没有显著差异,我们有理由问一下,清除外固定架针点所需的时间和资源是否值得。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信