髓内钉治疗感染高风险的胫骨骨折:抗菌涂层的指甲有区别吗?

IF 3.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2025-09-23 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00183
Nikolaos K Kanakaris, Vasileios P Giannoudis, Ritchie G Strain, Peter V Giannoudis
{"title":"髓内钉治疗感染高风险的胫骨骨折:抗菌涂层的指甲有区别吗?","authors":"Nikolaos K Kanakaris, Vasileios P Giannoudis, Ritchie G Strain, Peter V Giannoudis","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tibial fractures represent the most common model for studying complications of long-bone fracture treatment, particularly fracture-related infections (FRIs). One of the recently emerging FRI prevention strategies has been the use of coated intramedullary nails. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of 2 commercially available coated tibial nails (the ETN PROtect and the ZNN Bactiguard) in comparison with standard noncoated nails in clinical scenarios of high FRI risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-hospital and follow-up data for a minimum of 12 months were collected. High risk was defined as open injuries, fasciotomies, and fractures treated initially with a bridging external fixator or Oestern-Tscherne grade 2/3 soft tissue trauma. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata, with a significance level of p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred thirty-four high-risk tibial fractures were operated in different periods by the same team of senior surgeons. The PROtect nail was used in 102 fractures, the Bactiguard in 41, and the noncoated standard nail in 92. There were no statistically significant differences in epidemiological and comorbidity characteristics, severity of associated injuries, fracture types, severity of soft tissue trauma, time-to-definitive fixation, or soft tissue management between the coated nail groups. Overall, the incidence of FRIs was 9.4%: for the PROtect nails, 7.8%; for the Bactiguard nails, 4.9%; and 13.2% for the noncoated nails (p = 0.167). Staphylococcus was the most common species, whereas 11 (50%) samples were polymicrobial, and 18.8% were multidrug-resistant species. Uncomplicated union within 6 months was recorded in 64.7% vs. 65.9% vs. 53.8% and unplanned secondary interventions in 26.5% vs. 22% vs. 41.8%, respectively, (p = 0.009).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The incidence of FRIs in these high-risk tibial fractures was 9.4%. Compared with noncoated intramedullary implants, both types of coated nails achieved a lower incidence of FRI. Larger-scale studies would provide more robust evidence to inform patient care and validate the role of coated implants in preventing FRI.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, cohort study (nonrandomized comparative study). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tibial Fractures at High Risk of Infection Treated with Intramedullary Nailing: Do Nails with Antibacterial Coatings Make a Difference?\",\"authors\":\"Nikolaos K Kanakaris, Vasileios P Giannoudis, Ritchie G Strain, Peter V Giannoudis\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tibial fractures represent the most common model for studying complications of long-bone fracture treatment, particularly fracture-related infections (FRIs). One of the recently emerging FRI prevention strategies has been the use of coated intramedullary nails. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of 2 commercially available coated tibial nails (the ETN PROtect and the ZNN Bactiguard) in comparison with standard noncoated nails in clinical scenarios of high FRI risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-hospital and follow-up data for a minimum of 12 months were collected. High risk was defined as open injuries, fasciotomies, and fractures treated initially with a bridging external fixator or Oestern-Tscherne grade 2/3 soft tissue trauma. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata, with a significance level of p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred thirty-four high-risk tibial fractures were operated in different periods by the same team of senior surgeons. The PROtect nail was used in 102 fractures, the Bactiguard in 41, and the noncoated standard nail in 92. There were no statistically significant differences in epidemiological and comorbidity characteristics, severity of associated injuries, fracture types, severity of soft tissue trauma, time-to-definitive fixation, or soft tissue management between the coated nail groups. Overall, the incidence of FRIs was 9.4%: for the PROtect nails, 7.8%; for the Bactiguard nails, 4.9%; and 13.2% for the noncoated nails (p = 0.167). Staphylococcus was the most common species, whereas 11 (50%) samples were polymicrobial, and 18.8% were multidrug-resistant species. Uncomplicated union within 6 months was recorded in 64.7% vs. 65.9% vs. 53.8% and unplanned secondary interventions in 26.5% vs. 22% vs. 41.8%, respectively, (p = 0.009).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The incidence of FRIs in these high-risk tibial fractures was 9.4%. Compared with noncoated intramedullary implants, both types of coated nails achieved a lower incidence of FRI. Larger-scale studies would provide more robust evidence to inform patient care and validate the role of coated implants in preventing FRI.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, cohort study (nonrandomized comparative study). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448154/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胫骨骨折是研究长骨骨折治疗并发症最常见的模型,尤其是骨折相关感染(FRIs)。最近出现的FRI预防策略之一是使用涂覆髓内钉。本研究的目的是评估两种市售涂膜胫骨钉(ETN PROtect和ZNN Bactiguard)与标准非涂膜胫骨钉在临床高FRI风险情况下的临床效果。方法:收集至少12个月的住院和随访资料。高风险定义为开放性损伤、筋膜切开术和骨折,最初使用桥式外固定架或western - tscherne 2/3级软组织创伤。采用Stata进行统计学分析,p < 0.05为显著性水平。结果:同一组资深外科医生在不同时期对234例高危胫骨骨折进行手术治疗。在102例骨折中使用了PROtect钉,41例使用了Bactiguard钉,92例使用了无涂层标准钉。在流行病学和合并症特征、相关损伤的严重程度、骨折类型、软组织损伤的严重程度、最终固定时间或软组织处理方面,涂膜甲组之间无统计学差异。总体而言,fri的发生率为9.4%:PROtect指甲为7.8%;Bactiguard指甲为4.9%;无涂层指甲为13.2% (p = 0.167)。葡萄球菌是最常见的菌种,11份(50%)为多菌种,18.8%为多药耐药菌。6个月内无并发症愈合率分别为64.7%∶65.9%∶53.8%;非计划二次干预率分别为26.5%∶22%∶41.8%,差异有统计学意义(p = 0.009)。结论:fri在高危胫骨骨折中的发生率为9.4%。与非包膜髓内种植体相比,两种类型的包膜钉的FRI发生率都较低。更大规模的研究将提供更有力的证据,为患者护理提供信息,并验证包膜种植体在预防FRI中的作用。证据水平:III级,队列研究(非随机比较研究)。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。
Tibial Fractures at High Risk of Infection Treated with Intramedullary Nailing: Do Nails with Antibacterial Coatings Make a Difference?

Background: Tibial fractures represent the most common model for studying complications of long-bone fracture treatment, particularly fracture-related infections (FRIs). One of the recently emerging FRI prevention strategies has been the use of coated intramedullary nails. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of 2 commercially available coated tibial nails (the ETN PROtect and the ZNN Bactiguard) in comparison with standard noncoated nails in clinical scenarios of high FRI risk.

Methods: In-hospital and follow-up data for a minimum of 12 months were collected. High risk was defined as open injuries, fasciotomies, and fractures treated initially with a bridging external fixator or Oestern-Tscherne grade 2/3 soft tissue trauma. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata, with a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results: Two hundred thirty-four high-risk tibial fractures were operated in different periods by the same team of senior surgeons. The PROtect nail was used in 102 fractures, the Bactiguard in 41, and the noncoated standard nail in 92. There were no statistically significant differences in epidemiological and comorbidity characteristics, severity of associated injuries, fracture types, severity of soft tissue trauma, time-to-definitive fixation, or soft tissue management between the coated nail groups. Overall, the incidence of FRIs was 9.4%: for the PROtect nails, 7.8%; for the Bactiguard nails, 4.9%; and 13.2% for the noncoated nails (p = 0.167). Staphylococcus was the most common species, whereas 11 (50%) samples were polymicrobial, and 18.8% were multidrug-resistant species. Uncomplicated union within 6 months was recorded in 64.7% vs. 65.9% vs. 53.8% and unplanned secondary interventions in 26.5% vs. 22% vs. 41.8%, respectively, (p = 0.009).

Conclusions: The incidence of FRIs in these high-risk tibial fractures was 9.4%. Compared with noncoated intramedullary implants, both types of coated nails achieved a lower incidence of FRI. Larger-scale studies would provide more robust evidence to inform patient care and validate the role of coated implants in preventing FRI.

Level of evidence: Level III, cohort study (nonrandomized comparative study). 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
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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