RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: High-energy periarticular tibia fractures are challenging injuries with a significant risk of complications. Postoperative infection rates, although improved, remain unacceptable. Intrawound topical antibiotic (TA) application has been popularized to reduce postoperative infections. Although TA may minimize infections, it remains unclear whether TAs have any impact on the development of nonunion. Recent investigations of TA use in fracture care have questioned its efficacy in vivo and suggested a potentially deleterious effect on fracture healing. This study investigates the impact of TA on nonunion rates in surgically treated high-energy periarticular tibia fractures. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of surgically treated periarticular tibia fractures at a single Level 1 trauma center was conducted. Intervention in question was the clinical effect of intrawound TA powder application at definitive closure. A total of 222 high-energy periarticular tibia fractures were included, 114 with TA use and 108 without. The primary outcome was the occurrence of nonunion, with secondary outcomes being superficial and deep postoperative surgical site infections. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (12.1%) were diagnosed with nonunions (14 pilons and 13 plateaus). There was no statistically significant difference in nonunion rates among patients who received topical antibiotics (15.8%) versus the group of patients who did not (8.3%) ( P = 0.23). Odds of developing nonunion was significant for open injuries (odds ratio 6.16, P < 0.001) and patients with a provisional external fixator (odds ratio 8.72, P = 0.03) before definitive fixation. No notable difference in the number of superficial and deep infections was identified between groups. CONCLUSION: The use of TA in high-energy periarticular tibia fractures showed no statistically significant increase in nonunion rates but did not conclusively rule out nonunion as a possible effect of intrawound TA. Additional large-scale multicenter prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. The current body of literature regarding high-energy periarticular tibia fractures does suggest that TAs lower the risk of postoperative infections, but the nonunion risk remains unclear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.
Asunto(s)
Tibia , Fracturas de la Tibia , Humanos , Tibia/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Antibacterianos , Polvos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Fracturas de la Tibia/cirugía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Curación de FracturaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) use in fractures of the pelvic ring, acetabulum, and proximal femur. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Forty-seven patients were randomized to the study group, and 46 patients comprised the control group. INTERVENTION: The study group received 15 mg/kg IV TXA before incision and a second identical dose 3 hours after the initial dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Transfusion rates and total blood loss (TBL) [via hemoglobin-dilution method and rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs)]. RESULTS: TBL was significantly higher in the control group (TXA = 952 mL, no TXA = 1325 mL, P = 0.028). The total transfusion rates between the TXA and control groups were not significantly different (TXA 1.51, no TXA = 1.17, P = 0.41). There were no significant differences between the TXA and control groups in inpatient VTE events (P = 0.57). CONCLUSION: The use of TXA in high-energy fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, and femur significantly decreased calculated TBL but did not decrease overall transfusion rates. TXA did not increase the rate of VTE. Further study is warranted before making broad recommendations for the use of TXA in these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Asunto(s)
Antifibrinolíticos/uso terapéutico , Fracturas del Fémur/cirugía , Fijación Interna de Fracturas , Reducción Abierta , Huesos Pélvicos/lesiones , Ácido Tranexámico/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Pérdida de Sangre Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Transfusión Sanguínea , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for posttraumatic elbow stiffness. DESIGN: Retrospective, case series. SETTING: Single institution; level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Chart review of 45 patients over a 10-year period treated with MUA for posttraumatic elbow stiffness after elbow injuries treated both operatively and nonoperatively. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in total flexion arc pre- to postmanipulation; time to manipulation; complications. RESULTS: Average time from most recent surgical procedure or date of injury to MUA was 115 days. Average premanipulation flexion arc was 57.9 degrees; average flexion arc at the final follow-up was 83.7 degrees. The improvement in elbow flexion arc of motion was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis of the data revealed 2 distinct groups: 28 patients who underwent MUA within 3 months of their most recent surgical procedure (early manipulation), and 17 patients who underwent MUA after 3 months (late manipulation). Average improvement in elbow flexion arc in the early MUA group was 38.3 degrees (P < 0.001); improvement in the late MUA group was 3.1 degree. Comparison of improvement between the early and late MUA groups found a significant difference (P < 0.001) in mean flexion arc improvement from premanipulation to postmanipulation, favoring the early group. One patient had a complication directly attributable to MUA. Nineteen patients required additional procedures on the injured extremity after MUA. CONCLUSIONS: MUA is a safe and effective adjunct to improving motion in posttraumatic elbow stiffness when used within 3 months from the original injury or time of surgical fixation. After 3 months, MUA does not reliably increase elbow motion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia/métodos , Contractura/terapia , Lesiones de Codo , Predicción , Artropatías/terapia , Manipulaciones Musculoesqueléticas/métodos , Rango del Movimiento Articular/fisiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Contractura/etiología , Articulación del Codo/fisiopatología , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Artropatías/etiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recuperación de la Función , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative strengths of 2 different forms of revision spinal instrumentation using a validated, constant load, cyclic testing mechanism. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion with instrumentation procedures are on the rise. As such, so are revision procedures. A few studies have looked at revision instrumentation techniques. Both increased pedicle screw diameter as well as cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation have been proposed, used clinically and tested biomechanically. To our knowledge, no comparative study exists between these techniques. METHODS: Using an instron servohydraulic loading machine, we tested pedicle screws inserted in both the anatomic (angled) and Roy-Camille (straight) insertion technique with both larger diameter (8 mm) pedicle screws, as well as standard diameter (6 mm) pedicle screws augmented with polymethylmethacrylate bone cement. Each of these techniques was subjected to constant load under cyclic conditions for 2000 cycles at 2 Hz. Computerized data collection was used at all time points. Comparisons were made between primary instrumentation data (previously published) and large diameter screws for revision. Further comparisons were made between large diameter screws and cement augmented screws. RESULTS: The larger diameter screws compared with the cement augmented screws showed significant differences in: initial stiffness with straight insertion technique (P < 0.01), stiffness damage with straight insertion technique (P < 0.01), and creep damage with straight insertion technique (P = 0.01). There was also a significant difference between large diameter and primary instrumentation technique all calculated values (P Asunto(s)
Cementos para Huesos/uso terapéutico
, Tornillos Óseos
, Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía
, Polimetil Metacrilato/uso terapéutico
, Fusión Vertebral/métodos
, Anciano
, Fenómenos Biomecánicos
, Femenino
, Humanos
, Masculino
, Ensayo de Materiales
, Diseño de Prótesis
, Falla de Prótesis
, Reoperación
, Fusión Vertebral/instrumentación
, Estrés Mecánico