Shah Chirag M, Babb Patricia E, McAndrew Christopher M, Brimmo Olubusola, Badarudeen Sameer, Tornetta Paul, Ricci William M, Gardner Michael J
*Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; and †Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston University, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Sep;28(9):518-22. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000077.
The purpose of this study was to compare the infection risk when internal fixation plates either overlap or did not overlap previous external fixator pin sites in patients with bicondylar tibial plateau fractures and pilon fractures treated with a 2-staged protocol of acute spanning external fixation and later definitive internal fixation.
Retrospective comparison study.
Two level I trauma centers.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 85 OTA 41C bicondylar tibial plateau fractures and 97 OTA 43C pilon fractures treated between 2005 and 2010. Radiographs were evaluated to determine the positions of definitive plates in relation to external fixator pin sites and patients were grouped into an "overlapping" group and a "nonoverlapping" group.
Fifty patients had overlapping pin sites and 132 did not.
Presence of a deep wound infection.
Overall, 25 patients developed a deep wound infection. Of the 50 patients in the "overlapping" group, 12 (24%) developed a deep infection compared with 13 (10%) of the 132 patients in the "nonoverlapping" group (P = 0.033).
Placement of definitive plate fixation overlapping previous external fixator pin sites significantly increases the risk of deep infection in the 2-staged treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau and pilon fractures. Surgeons must make a conscious effort to place external fixator pins outside of future definitive fixation sites to reduce the overall incidence of deep wound infections. Additionally, consideration must be given to the relative benefit of a spanning external fixator in light of the potential for infection associated with their use.
Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
本研究旨在比较在采用急性跨关节外固定和后期确定性内固定两阶段治疗方案的双髁胫骨平台骨折和Pilon骨折患者中,内固定钢板与先前外固定针孔重叠或不重叠时的感染风险。
回顾性比较研究。
两个一级创伤中心。
患者/参与者:2005年至2010年间共治疗85例OTA 41C型双髁胫骨平台骨折和97例OTA 43C型Pilon骨折。通过X线片评估确定确定性钢板相对于外固定针孔的位置,并将患者分为“重叠”组和“非重叠”组。
50例患者针孔重叠,132例患者针孔不重叠。
深部伤口感染的发生情况。
总体而言,25例患者发生深部伤口感染。“重叠”组的50例患者中有12例(24%)发生深部感染,而“非重叠”组的132例患者中有13例(10%)发生深部感染(P = 0.033)。
在双髁胫骨平台骨折和Pilon骨折的两阶段治疗中,确定性钢板固定位置与先前外固定针孔重叠会显著增加深部感染的风险。外科医生必须有意识地将外固定针置于未来确定性固定部位之外,以降低深部伤口感染的总体发生率。此外,鉴于使用跨关节外固定器存在感染风险,必须考虑其相对益处。
治疗性III级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参阅作者指南。