Weichteildefekt und exponiertes Osteosynthesematerial — Metallerhalt oder Entfernung?

Hardware removal or preservation? Decision making based on a newly developed rating scale

Hardware exposure following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery is a tricky problem. It is always hard for surgeons to decide whether to keep or remove the hardware. In this study, a rating scale and corresponding clinical path is developed based on former published paper as well as our own experience. New admitted patients are first evaluated and scored once they enter the department. Based on the score they get, patients are assigned to different therapeutic schedule, i.e. (1) hardware preservation with pedicel flap transplantation, (2) debridement for further reevaluation and (3) hardware removal with external fixation. Satisfying clinical outcome is achieved that is characterized with high osseous consolidation rate and low complication rate. The result showed that this newly developed rating scale and the related therapeutic schedule could be an available tool to help surgeons to make decisions in the treatment of hardware exposure.

Factors influencing treatment success of negative pressure wound therapy in patients with postoperative infections after Osteosynthetic fracture fixation

Background

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) is being increasingly used to treat postoperative infections after osteosynthetic fracture fixation. The aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of epidemiological and microbiological parameters on outcome.

Methods

Infections following operative fracture fixation were registered in a comprehensive Critical Incidence Reporting System and subsequently analyzed retrospectively for characteristics of patients including comorbidity, bacteria, and clinical factors. The influence of the investigated parameters was analyzed using logistic regression models based on data from 106 patients.

Results

Staged wound lavage in combination with NPWT allowed implant preservation in 44% and led to successful healing in 73% of patients. Fermentation characteristics, load and behavior after gram staining revealed no statistically significant correlation with either healing or implant preservation. Infecting bacteria were successfully isolated in 87% of patients. 20% of all infections were caused by bacterial combinations. We observed a change in the infecting bacterial species under therapy in 23%. Age, gender, metabolic diseases or comorbidities did not influence the probability of implant preservation or healing. The delayed manifestation of infection (>4 weeks) correlated with a higher risk for implant loss (OR 5.1 [95% CI 1.41–17.92]) as did the presence of bacterial mixture (OR 5.0 [95% CI 1.41–17.92]) and open soft-tissue damage ≥ grade 3 (OR 10.2 [CI 1.88–55.28]). Wounds were less likely to heal in conjunction with high CRP blood levels (>20 mg/l) at the time of discharge (OR 3.6 [95% CI 1.31–10.08]) or following a change of the infecting bacterial species under therapy (OR 3.2 [95% CI, 1.13–8.99]).

Conclusions

These results indicate that the delayed manifestation of infection, high CRP blood levels at discharge, and alterations in the infecting bacterial species under therapy raise the risk of NPWT failure.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1607-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

High complication rate after septic orthopaedic implant removal of the lower leg

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to determine predictive risk factors for revision surgery in patients with septic orthopaedic implant removal of the lower leg.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 196 patients with septic removal of orthopaedic implants after primary trauma of the lower leg between 2008 and 2012 were evaluated. Patients with endoprosthesis infection were excluded from this study.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (22.4 %) had infectious complications with revision surgery. We found 14 patients with soft tissue infections, 10 patients with osteomyelitis, 19 patients with wound-healing problems, 10 patients with pin track infections and two patients with fistulas. High complication rates were associated with severity of the initial trauma, localisation, and the state of union or non-union. Patients with peripheral arterial disease, anaemia and smoking showed a significantly higher risk for revision surgery; whereas patients with diabetes and arterial hypertension did not. A total of 22.6 % had open fractures as an initial trauma. In 76 %, bacteria could be detected. The complication rate was 41.2 % after initial open fractures and 19.6 % after initial closed fractures. A higher grade of soft tissue damage showed no increasing complication rate (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, complications after septic implant removal of the lower leg were evaluated and risk factors were determined. The awareness of the risks for complications after septic orthopaedic implant removal can lead to a better treatment for patients. Decision-making can be based on scientific results to prevent patients suffering from further severe disease progression.