Draeger Reid W, Dirschl Douglas R, Dahners Laurence E
Department of Orthopaedics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7055, USA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Nov-Dec;20(10):692-8. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31802b41e2.
This study tests the bone debridement efficacy and damage to cancellous bone produced by different wound irrigation methods.
Cancellous bone slices of bovine distal femurs (3 cm x 3 cm) were divided into eight test groups and scored with a saw in a latticed pattern. Four test groups were contaminated with 1.0 g rock dust and four were not. The specimens were then treated as follows: no treatment (control), bulb irrigation, brush-suction irrigation, or high-pressure pulsatile lavage (HPPL). Runoff from the irrigation was collected, filtered, lyophilized, and ashed to allow for quantitative determination of organic and inorganic material removed from the bone by each irrigation method. The bone samples were subjected to blinded grading on two five-point scales to assess: 1) macroscopic tissue damage and 2) amount of contaminant remaining following treatment.
Significantly more (P < or = 0.05) mean organic material was removed from samples treated with HPPL (744.8 +/- 120.0 mg) than with bulb syringe (115.2 +/- 11.9 mg) or brush-suction irrigation (95.1 +/- 9.2 mg). Brush-suction irrigation removed statistically significantly more (P < or = 0.05) of the 1.0 g of initial inorganic contaminant (937.7 +/- 6.3 mg) than bulb syringe irrigation (866.2 +/- 30.1 mg), while HPPL (900.2 +/- 19.0 mg) did not.
Past studies have shown HPPL to damage both soft tissue and bone structure. The tissue damage that HPPL produces has been accepted in the past in exchange for its presumed superiority in contaminant removal. In this study, HPPL damaged samples more than other irrigation methods by removing significantly more organic material from them. However, HPPL and bulb syringe removed a statistically similar amount of inorganic contaminant, while brush-suction irrigation removed a significantly greater amount of inorganic contaminant than bulb syringe. It is proposed that HPPL may drive some contaminants deeper into the tissue rather than removing them, rendering HPPL not only more deleterious to bone structure and healing, but also less efficacious at removing contaminant than brush-suction irrigation.
本研究测试不同伤口冲洗方法对松质骨的清创效果及造成的损伤。
将牛股骨远端的松质骨切片(3厘米×3厘米)分成8个测试组,并用锯以网格状进行切割评分。4个测试组用1.0克岩尘污染,另外4个组未污染。然后对标本进行如下处理:不处理(对照组)、球囊冲洗、刷吸冲洗或高压脉冲冲洗(HPPL)。收集冲洗后的流出物,过滤、冻干并灰化,以便定量测定每种冲洗方法从骨中去除的有机和无机物质。对骨样本在两个五分制量表上进行盲法评分以评估:1)宏观组织损伤;2)处理后残留的污染物量。
与球囊冲洗(115.2±11.9毫克)或刷吸冲洗(95.1±9.2毫克)相比,接受高压脉冲冲洗(HPPL)处理的样本去除的平均有机物质显著更多(P≤0.05)(744.8±120.0毫克)。刷吸冲洗去除的初始1.0克无机污染物(937.7±6.3毫克)在统计学上显著多于球囊冲洗(866.2±30.1毫克),而高压脉冲冲洗(900.2±19.0毫克)则不然。
过去的研究表明高压脉冲冲洗会损伤软组织和骨结构。过去人们接受高压脉冲冲洗产生的组织损伤,以换取其在污染物清除方面的假定优势。在本研究中,高压脉冲冲洗通过从样本中去除显著更多的有机物质,对样本造成的损伤比其他冲洗方法更大。然而,高压脉冲冲洗和球囊冲洗去除的无机污染物量在统计学上相似,而刷吸冲洗去除的无机污染物量比球囊冲洗显著更多。有人提出,高压脉冲冲洗可能会将一些污染物驱入组织更深层而非将其清除,这使得高压脉冲冲洗不仅对骨结构和愈合更具危害性,而且在去除污染物方面比刷吸冲洗效果更差。