使用临时外固定架治疗开放性下肢骨折的实践模式差异。

Augustine M Saiz,Christina A Stennett,Nicholas M Romeo,Kevin D Phelps,Joshua L Gary,Christopher M Domes,Mark J Gage,Nathan N O'Hara,Sheila Sprague,Gerard P Slobogean,Stephen J Warner,
{"title":"使用临时外固定架治疗开放性下肢骨折的实践模式差异。","authors":"Augustine M Saiz,Christina A Stennett,Nicholas M Romeo,Kevin D Phelps,Joshua L Gary,Christopher M Domes,Mark J Gage,Nathan N O'Hara,Sheila Sprague,Gerard P Slobogean,Stephen J Warner,","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nExternal fixation is often used in the management of open lower-extremity fractures. The objectives of this study were to identify hospital characteristics that are associated with greater use of temporary external fixation and to determine if external fixation reduces the odds of surgical site infection (SSI) and unplanned reoperation among patients with open lower-extremity fractures.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis is a secondary analysis of the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE-Open trials involving open lower-extremity fractures. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher exact tests were used to assess if temporary external fixation use varied between hospital clusters. Mixed-effects logistic regression models controlling for hospital cluster and participant characteristics estimated the associations between temporary external fixation and SSI or unplanned reoperation.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThere were 2,438 patients with an open lower-extremity fracture identified, with 568 (23.3%) undergoing temporary external fixation. There were 34 participating hospitals with a median external fixation rate of 21.5%. Hospitals with higher temporary external fixation use had a higher number of surgeons treating patients with fracture (p = 0.02). There was no difference in SSI at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 1.66]; p = 0.40) or 1 year (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.75]; p = 0.08) between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Patients who underwent temporary external fixation were more likely to have unplanned reoperations within 1 year (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.79]; p = 0.05).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nMore temporary external fixation for open lower-extremity fractures was performed at hospitals with more surgeons treating fractures. There was no difference in SSI at 90 days or 1 year between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Temporary external fixation tended to be used in more critically ill patients and patients with more severe fractures but was not associated with increased unplanned reoperations at 90 days or at 1 year.\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":"15 1","pages":"43-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Practice Patterns in the Use of Temporary External Fixation for the Management of Open Lower-Extremity Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Augustine M Saiz,Christina A Stennett,Nicholas M Romeo,Kevin D Phelps,Joshua L Gary,Christopher M Domes,Mark J Gage,Nathan N O'Hara,Sheila Sprague,Gerard P Slobogean,Stephen J Warner,\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/jbjs.24.01250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nExternal fixation is often used in the management of open lower-extremity fractures. The objectives of this study were to identify hospital characteristics that are associated with greater use of temporary external fixation and to determine if external fixation reduces the odds of surgical site infection (SSI) and unplanned reoperation among patients with open lower-extremity fractures.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis is a secondary analysis of the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE-Open trials involving open lower-extremity fractures. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher exact tests were used to assess if temporary external fixation use varied between hospital clusters. Mixed-effects logistic regression models controlling for hospital cluster and participant characteristics estimated the associations between temporary external fixation and SSI or unplanned reoperation.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThere were 2,438 patients with an open lower-extremity fracture identified, with 568 (23.3%) undergoing temporary external fixation. There were 34 participating hospitals with a median external fixation rate of 21.5%. Hospitals with higher temporary external fixation use had a higher number of surgeons treating patients with fracture (p = 0.02). There was no difference in SSI at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 1.66]; p = 0.40) or 1 year (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.75]; p = 0.08) between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Patients who underwent temporary external fixation were more likely to have unplanned reoperations within 1 year (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.79]; p = 0.05).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nMore temporary external fixation for open lower-extremity fractures was performed at hospitals with more surgeons treating fractures. There was no difference in SSI at 90 days or 1 year between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Temporary external fixation tended to be used in more critically ill patients and patients with more severe fractures but was not associated with increased unplanned reoperations at 90 days or at 1 year.\\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\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"43-50\"},\"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.24.01250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:外固定常用于治疗开放性下肢骨折。本研究的目的是确定与更多使用临时外固定物相关的医院特征,并确定外固定物是否能降低开放性下肢骨折患者手术部位感染(SSI)和意外再手术的几率。方法:这是一项涉及开放性下肢骨折的水性prep和prep - open试验的二次分析。使用Wilcoxon秩和和Fisher精确检验来评估医院群间临时外固定架的使用是否存在差异。控制医院集群和参与者特征的混合效应logistic回归模型估计了临时外固定与SSI或计划外再手术之间的关联。结果共发现2438例下肢开放性骨折患者,其中568例(23.3%)接受了临时外固定。参与调查的医院34家,外固定物使用率中位数为21.5%。临时外固定架使用率较高的医院治疗骨折患者的外科医生人数较多(p = 0.02)。90天时SSI无差异(优势比[OR], 1.16[95%可信区间(CI), 0.82 ~ 1.66];p = 0.40)或1年(or, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.97 ~ 1.75];P = 0.08)。接受临时外固定的患者更有可能在1年内发生计划外再手术(OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.96至1.79];P = 0.05)。结论在治疗骨折的外科医生较多的医院,采用临时外固定治疗开放性下肢骨折的病例较多。接受和未接受临时外固定的患者在90天和1年内的SSI没有差异。临时外固定支架倾向于用于危重患者和骨折更严重的患者,但与90天或1年内计划外再手术的增加无关。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。
Differences in Practice Patterns in the Use of Temporary External Fixation for the Management of Open Lower-Extremity Fractures.
BACKGROUND External fixation is often used in the management of open lower-extremity fractures. The objectives of this study were to identify hospital characteristics that are associated with greater use of temporary external fixation and to determine if external fixation reduces the odds of surgical site infection (SSI) and unplanned reoperation among patients with open lower-extremity fractures. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE-Open trials involving open lower-extremity fractures. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher exact tests were used to assess if temporary external fixation use varied between hospital clusters. Mixed-effects logistic regression models controlling for hospital cluster and participant characteristics estimated the associations between temporary external fixation and SSI or unplanned reoperation. RESULTS There were 2,438 patients with an open lower-extremity fracture identified, with 568 (23.3%) undergoing temporary external fixation. There were 34 participating hospitals with a median external fixation rate of 21.5%. Hospitals with higher temporary external fixation use had a higher number of surgeons treating patients with fracture (p = 0.02). There was no difference in SSI at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 1.66]; p = 0.40) or 1 year (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.75]; p = 0.08) between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Patients who underwent temporary external fixation were more likely to have unplanned reoperations within 1 year (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.79]; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS More temporary external fixation for open lower-extremity fractures was performed at hospitals with more surgeons treating fractures. There was no difference in SSI at 90 days or 1 year between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Temporary external fixation tended to be used in more critically ill patients and patients with more severe fractures but was not associated with increased unplanned reoperations at 90 days or at 1 year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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