RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Sonication is a new technology that uses high-frequency sound waves to mechanically dislodge bacteria adherent in biofilms. Unlike arthroplasty, its role in orthopaedic trauma has not been described. The goal of this study was to explore the utility of sonication in orthopaedic trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-six sonicated metallic orthopaedic devices from September 2010 to May 2013 were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups: clinically infected, elective implant removals, and nonunion. INTERVENTION: Sonication culture results were retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing implant removal. OUTCOMES: Sonication results were the primary study outcome and were considered positive for culture growth if equal to or greater than 20 colony-forming units per plate. RESULTS: In 32 patients with clinical infection, tissue cultures were positive in 30 (94%) and negative in 2 (6%). In contrast, sonication cultures were positive in 19 patients (59%) and did not identify additional organisms. Of the 72 patients who underwent elective implant removal, 52 had pain. Sonication cultures were positive in 5 of these 52 patients (10%) and in 0 of 20 patients with no pain. Sonication culture results were negative in all 42 patients who underwent nonunion surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Sonication of orthopaedic trauma implants in patients with clinically apparent infection or "aseptic" nonunion offered negligible additional information. Sonication demonstrated a positive microbiologic yield in a subset of patients with painful implants; further research is required to better establish the frequency of subclinical infection and to determine the diagnostic role of traditional cultures and sonication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Asunto(s)
Bacterias/aislamiento & purificación , Contaminación de Equipos , Técnicas Microbiológicas/métodos , Equipo Ortopédico/microbiología , Prótesis e Implantes/microbiología , Manejo de Especímenes/métodos , Bacterias/efectos de la radiación , Biopelículas/efectos de la radiación , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/microbiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgeons are at a high risk of sustaining a percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood and body fluids. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a wash with soap and water and notification of the concerned hospital authorities after any percutaneous/mucocutaneous exposure, but a systematic amenability with these guidelines is not always seen. This cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine current knowledge and practices of orthopaedic surgeons in case of a percutaneous sharp injury exposure, emphasizes the immediate first aid steps taken after an exposure, the degree of reporting, and to explore the reasons for noncompliance. Finally, we sought to create awareness about the prevailing Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines after any exposure to blood or body fluids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using an anonymous prepared questionnaire. The study population included exclusively orthopaedic surgeons, including residents, fellows, and attending physicians at 4 US institutions. The questionnaire was also available online on the OTA Web site as a part of survey monkey. The questionnaire comprised 9 multiple choice questions, and more than 1 response could be given for some questions. The questions addressed previous needle stick/sharp injury exposure, number of times that had happened, whether reported to the hospital administration, reason for nonreporting, and risk perception for transmission of blood-borne pathogens (human immunodeficiency virus, HBsAg, and hepatitis C virus). The questions were also asked based on what should be done in four different clinical settings based on respondents risk perception. RESULTS: Of fifty eight attendings, 7 fellows, 45 residents, and 7 respondents who did not indicate their position participated in the survey for a total of 117 respondents. Out of 99, 24 had sustained it once, 18 twice, 11 three times, and 35 at least 4 times. When questioned about informing the incident to the hospital administration, 38% had always reported the incident, 33% had never reported the incident, and the remaining 29% had not reported it every time. Of note, 87% gave the correct response about the risk of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus after an exposure. On questioning about the risk of hepatitis B transmission, from an HBsAg- and HBeAg-positive source, 13% gave the correct response, whereas from HBsAg-positive and HBeAg-negative source, 30% gave the correct response. Regarding transmission of hepatitis C virus from a positive source, 36% responded correctly. The surgeons seemingly attempted to risk stratify their exposure, and they were more likely to report their exposure in the higher risk scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that orthopaedic surgeons of all levels of training are at high risk of occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Moreover, despite the level of training, the majority of surgeons do not follow the recommended steps, although we do not know the reasons for such behavior. Also, there is a low awareness of the significant risk of hepatitis transmission among orthopaedic surgeons treating a population with a high prevalence of undiagnosed hepatitis.