Harwood Paul J, Giannoudis Peter V, Probst Christian, Krettek Christian, Pape Hans-Christoph
International AO Research Fellow, Hannover/Leeds, UK.
J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Mar;20(3):181-9. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200603000-00004.
To determine infection rates after damage control orthopaedics (DCO) and primary intramedullary nailing (1' IMN) in multiply injured patients with femoral shaft fracture.
Retrospective case analysis.
Level I trauma center.
All patients with New Injury Severity Score (NISS) >20 and femoral shaft fracture (AO 32-) treated in our unit between 1996 and 2002.
Damage control orthopaedics, defined as primary external fixation of the femoral shaft fracture and subsequent conversion to an intramedullary nail, or primary IMN.
Rates of infection classified as contamination (positive swabs with no clinical change), superficial, deep (requiring surgery), and removal of hardware (those requiring removal of femoral instrumentation or amputation).
A total of 173 patients with 192 fractures were included; 111 fractures were treated by DCO and 81 by primary IMN. Mean follow-up was 19.1 months [median, 16.7, range, 1 (patient died)-67 months]. DCO patients had a significantly higher NISS and more grade III open fractures (P<0.001). IMN procedures took a median of 150 minutes compared with 85 minutes for DCO (P<0.0001). Although wound contamination (including contaminated pin sites) was more common in the DCO group (P<0.05), the risk of infectious complications was equivalent (P=0.86). Contamination was significantly more likely when conversion to IMN occurred after more than 14 days (P<0.05); however, this did not lead to more clinically relevant infections. Logistic regression analysis showed that although a DCO approach was not associated with infection, delay before conversion in the DCO group might be [P=0.002 for contamination and removal of hardware, P=0.065 for serious infection (deep or worse), not significant for other infection outcomes]. Grade III open injury also was significantly associated with serious infection in all patients (P<0.05).
Infection rates after DCO for femoral fractures are comparable to those after primary IMN. We see no contraindication to the implementation of a damage control approach for severely injured patients with femoral shaft fracture where appropriate. Pin-site contamination was more common where the fixator was in place for more than 2 weeks. For patients treated by using a DCO approach, conversion to definitive fixation should be performed in a timely fashion.
确定采用损伤控制骨科手术(DCO)和一期髓内钉固定术(P1 IMN)治疗多发伤合并股骨干骨折患者后的感染率。
回顾性病例分析。
一级创伤中心。
1996年至2002年在本单位接受治疗的所有新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)>20且股骨干骨折(AO 32-)的患者。
损伤控制骨科手术,定义为股骨干骨折的一期外固定,随后转换为髓内钉,或一期髓内钉固定术。
感染率分为污染(拭子阳性但无临床变化)、表浅感染、深部感染(需要手术)和内固定物取出(需要取出股骨内固定器械或截肢)。
共纳入173例患者的192处骨折;111处骨折采用DCO治疗,81处采用一期髓内钉固定术治疗。平均随访时间为19.1个月[中位数,16.7个月,范围,1(患者死亡)-67个月]。DCO组患者的NISS显著更高,开放性骨折Ⅲ级更多(P<0.001);髓内钉固定术的手术时间中位数为150分钟,而DCO为85分钟(P<0.0001)。虽然伤口污染(包括固定针部位污染)在DCO组更常见(P<0.05),但感染并发症的风险相当(P=0.86)。超过14天后转换为髓内钉固定时,污染的可能性显著更高(P<0.05);然而,这并未导致更多具有临床意义的感染。逻辑回归分析显示,虽然DCO方法与感染无关,但DCO组转换前的延迟可能有关[污染和内固定物取出的P=0.002,严重感染(深部或更严重)的P=0.065,其他感染结局不显著]。Ⅲ级开放性损伤在所有患者中也与严重感染显著相关(P<0.05)。
股骨干骨折采用DCO后的感染率与一期髓内钉固定术后相当。对于严重受伤合并股骨干骨折的患者,在适当情况下,我们认为采用损伤控制方法没有禁忌证。固定针部位污染在固定器放置超过2周时更常见。对于采用DCO方法治疗的患者,应及时转换为确定性固定。