Suppr超能文献

一期清创与骨搬运术对比一期清创及二期骨搬运术治疗下肢创伤后骨髓炎

One-stage debridement and bone transport versus first-stage debridement and second-stage bone transport for the management of lower limb post-traumatic osteomyelitis.

作者信息

Zhou Chun-Hao, Ren Ying, Song Hui-Juan, Ali Abdulnassir Adem, Meng Xiang-Qing, Xu Lei, Zhang Hong-An, Fang Jia, Qin Cheng-He

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Provincial Key Laboratory of Bone and Cartilage Regenerative Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, PR China.

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, 510317, PR China.

出版信息

J Orthop Translat. 2021 Feb 5;28:21-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.12.004. eCollection 2021 May.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Treatment of lower limb post-traumatic osteomyelitis used to be a staged process, with radical debridement of bone and soft tissues at first stage, followed by a second-stage limb reconstruction operation to restore the limb integrity. Some studies recently reported that achieving infection eradication and limb reconstruction at single-stage seems to be an effective method for lower limb infection, but a comparative study remains lacking. This study aims to compare the results of radical debridement combined with a first/second-staged osteotomy and bone transport, for the management of lower limb post-traumatic osteomyelitis.

METHODS

From January 2013 to June 2018, a total of 102 patients with lower limb post-traumatic osteomyelitis met the criteria were included for analysis, in which 70 patients received one-stage debridement, antibiotic-loaded implantation, metaphysis osteotomy and bone transport were named as one-stage group, while 32 patients with first-stage debridement and antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate implantation, second-stage osteotomy and bone transport were devised as two-stage group. The outcomes of hospitalization (hospital stay, costs of treatment, surgical time, antibiotic usage) and follow-up (infection-free, treatment failure, infection recurrence, external fixation index (EFI) and docking site union) between the two groups were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

For outcomes of hospitalization, patients in the one-stage group had batter results on hospital stay (18.2 days versus 28.9 days, P ​< ​0.05), surgical time (164.8 ​min versus 257.4 ​min, P ​< ​0.05), cost of treatment (¥101726.1 versus ¥126718.8, P ​< ​0.05) and the course of antibiotic usage (10.3 days versus 12.0 days, P ​< ​0.05). During the follow-up, 87.1% (61/70) patients in the one-stage group compared to 93.8% (30/32) patients in the two-stage group achieved infection-free (P ​> ​0.05) without any additional debridement operation. 94.3% (66/70) patients in the one-stage group earned wound healing after the operation, comparing to 96.9% (31/32) patients healed in the two-stage group (P ​> ​0.05). Uncontrolled infection was observed on 4 (5.7%) patients in the one-stage group and 1 (3.1%) patients in the two-stage group (P ​> ​0.05), with a result of three achieved infection free in the one-stage group and one patient suffered from amputation in each group respectively. 5 (7.2%) patients in the one-stage group and 1 (3.2%) patient in the two-stage group encountered with infection recurrence (P ​> ​0.05) and were well-managed with re-debridement and antibiotics usage. Significance was not found between two groups on EFI (74.8 days/cm versus 69.0 days/cm, P ​> ​0.05) and docking site nonunion rate (14.5% versus 18.9%, P ​> ​0.05), indicating that bone transport in different stages played a less essential role on bone generation process. The other complications, such as prolonged aseptic drainage [24.3% (17/70) versus 21.9% (7/32)], re-fracture [5.8% (4/69) versus 3.2% (1/31)], pin-tract infection [23.2% (16/69) versus 19.4% (6/31)], joint stiffness and deformity [26.1% (18/69) versus 32.3% (10/31)], also showed less significance when comparing between two groups (P ​> ​0.05), suggesting that different transport stages play little role on complications formation.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage radical debridement and bone transport was proven to be a safe and effective method for treating static (or near static) lower limb osteomyelitis.

TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL STATEMENT

Translational potential statement One-stage debridement and bone transport is sample, effective and time-saving, with similar complications compared to conventional two-stage protocol. This treatment protocol might provide an alternative for the treatment of static (or near static) lower limb osteomyelitis.

摘要

背景

下肢创伤后骨髓炎的治疗过去是一个分阶段的过程,第一阶段对骨骼和软组织进行彻底清创,随后进行第二阶段的肢体重建手术以恢复肢体完整性。最近一些研究报告称,单阶段实现感染根除和肢体重建似乎是治疗下肢感染的一种有效方法,但仍缺乏对比研究。本研究旨在比较彻底清创联合一期/二期截骨及骨搬运治疗下肢创伤后骨髓炎的效果。

方法

2013年1月至2018年6月,共纳入102例符合标准的下肢创伤后骨髓炎患者进行分析,其中70例患者接受一期清创、抗生素负载植入物、干骺端截骨及骨搬运,命名为一期组;32例患者接受一期清创及抗生素负载硫酸钙植入物,二期截骨及骨搬运,设计为二期组。回顾性比较两组患者的住院结局(住院时间、治疗费用、手术时间、抗生素使用时间)及随访结局(无感染、治疗失败、感染复发、外固定指数(EFI)及对接部位愈合情况)。

结果

在住院结局方面,一期组患者在住院时间(18.2天对28.9天,P<0.05)、手术时间(164.8分钟对257.4分钟,P<0.05)、治疗费用(101726.1元对126718.8元,P<0.05)及抗生素使用疗程(10.3天对12.0天,P<0.05)方面结果更好。随访期间,一期组87.1%(61/70)的患者与二期组93.8%(30/32)的患者实现无感染(P>0.05),且无需任何额外清创手术。一期组94.3%(66/70)的患者术后伤口愈合,二期组为96.9%(31/32)(P>0.05)。一期组4例(5.7%)患者和二期组1例(3.1%)患者出现感染未控制情况(P>0.05);结果是一期组3例实现无感染,每组分别有1例患者截肢。一期组5例(7.2%)患者和二期组1例(3.2%)患者出现感染复发(P>0.05),经再次清创及使用抗生素后得到良好处理。两组在EFI(74.8天/厘米对69.0天/厘米,P>0.05)及对接部位不愈合率(14.5%对18.9%,P>0.05)方面未发现差异,表明不同阶段的骨搬运在骨生成过程中作用较小。其他并发症,如无菌引流时间延长[24.3%(17/70)对21.9%(7/32)]、再次骨折[5.8%(4/69)对3.2%(1/31)]、针道感染[23.2%(16/69)对19.4%(6/31)]、关节僵硬及畸形[26.1%(18/69)对32.3%(10/31)],两组比较差异也无统计学意义(P>0.05),提示不同的搬运阶段对并发症形成影响较小。

结论

一期彻底清创及骨搬运被证明是治疗静止(或接近静止)型下肢骨髓炎的一种安全有效的方法。

转化潜力声明

一期清创及骨搬运简单、有效且节省时间,与传统的两阶段方案相比并发症相似。该治疗方案可能为静止(或接近静止)型下肢骨髓炎的治疗提供一种替代方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/07a8/7887329/2b9d0034d25f/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验