Surgical site infection after wound closure with staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasty:a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study surgical site infection of wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to search for randomized controlled trials that compared surgical site infection after wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. The primary outcome was surgical site infection. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval with a random-effects model were assessed. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this study, including 2 studies with a low risk of bias, 4 studies having ‘some concerns’, and 2 studies with high risk of bias. Significant difference was not found in the risk of SSI for patients with staples (n = 557) versus sutures (n = 573) (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 0.94–3.08, I(2) = 16%). The results were similar after excluding the studies with a high risk of bias (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.91–3.07, I(2) = 32%). Analysis of studies with low risk of bias revealed a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection in patients with staples (n = 331) compared to sutures (n = 331) (RR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.20–5.44, I(2) = 0%). There was no difference between continuous and interrupted sutures (P > 0.05). In hip arthroplasty, stapling carried a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing (RR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15–5.50, I(2) = 0%), but there was no significant difference in knee arthroplasty (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33–2.25, I(2) = 22%; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Stapling might carry a higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing in elective knee and hip arthroplasties, especially in hip arthroplasty. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42836-021-00110-7

Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons

Background: There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use.Methods: Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group-Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs.Results: 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%).Conclusions: A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is needed. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Foot and Ankle Society

Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons

There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use. Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group-Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs. 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%). A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is neede

Perioperative management of external fixation in staged protocols: an international survey

Despite the frequent use of external fixation, various regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical technique and postoperative pin care exist and underline the lack of current evidence. The aim of the study was to assess the variability or consensus in perioperative protocols to prevent implant-associated infections for temporary external fixation in closed fractures of the extremities. A 26-question survey was sent to 170 members of the Traumaplatform. The survey included questions concerning demographics, level of training, type of training and perioperative protocols as: antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative management, disinfection and postoperative pin site care. All responses were statistically analysed, and intraoperative measures rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses of fifty orthopaedic trauma and general surgeons (response rate, 29.4%) were analysed. The level of experience was more than 5 years in 92% (n = 46) with up to 50 closed fractures of the extremities annually treated with external fixation in 80% (n = 40). Highest consensus could be identified in the following perioperative measures: preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with a second-generation cephalosporin (86%, n = 43), changing gloves if manipulation of the external fixator is necessary during surgery (86%, n = 43; 4.12 points on the Likert scale), avoid overlapping of the pin sites with the definitive implant site (94%, n = 47; 4.12 points on the Likert scale) and soft tissue protection with a drill sleeve (83.6%, n = 41). Our survey could identify some general principles, which were rated as important by a majority of the respondents. Futures studies' focus should elucidate the role of perioperative antibiotics and different disinfection protocols on implant-associated infections after temporary external fixation in staged protocols. This study provides Level IV evidence according to Oxford centre for evidence-based medicin

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging versus bone scintigraphy for clinically suspected scaphoid fractures in patients with negative plain radiographs

In clinically suspected scaphoid fractures, early diagnosis reduces the risk of non-union and minimises loss in productivity resulting from unnecessary cast immobilisation. Since initial radiographs do not exclude the possibility of a fracture, additional imaging is needed. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are widely used to establish a definitive diagnosis, but there is uncertainty about the most appropriate method. The primary aim of this study is to identify the most suitable diagnostic imaging strategy for identifying clinically suspected fractures of the scaphoid bone in patients with normal radiographs. Therefore we looked at the diagnostic performance characteristics of the most used imaging modalities for this purpose: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy. In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. In September 2012, we searched MEDION, ARIF, Current Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings and reference lists of all articles. We included all prospective or retrospective studies involving a consecutive series of patients of all ages that evaluated the accuracy of BS, CT or MRI, or any combination of these, for diagnosing suspected scaphoid fractures. We considered the use of one or two index tests or six-week follow-up radiographs as adequate reference standards. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible studies. The same authors extracted data from full-text reports and assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS checklist. For each index test, estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study were plotted in ROC space; and forest plots were constructed for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the HSROC model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We included 11 studies that looked at diagnostic accuracy of one or two index tests: four studies (277 suspected fractures) looked at CT, five studies (221 suspected fractures) looked at MRI and six studies (543 suspected fractures) looked at BS. Four of the studies made direct comparisons: two studies compared CT and MRI, one study compared CT and BS, and one study compared MRI and BS. Overall, the studies were of moderate to good quality, but relevant clinical information during evaluation of CT, MRI or BS was mostly unclear or unavailable.As few studies made direct comparisons between tests with the same participants, our results are based on data from indirect comparisons, which means that these results are more susceptible to bias due to confounding. Nonetheless, the direct comparisons showed similar patterns of differences in sensitivity and specificity as for the pooled indirect comparisons.Summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.92) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.00); for MRI, these were 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.00); for BS, these were 0.99 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). Indirect comparisons suggest that diagnostic accuracy of BS was significantly higher than CT and MRI; and CT and MRI have comparable diagnostic accuracy. The low prevalence of a true fracture among suspected fractures (median = 20%) means the lower specificity for BS is problematic. For example, in a cohort of 1000 patients, 112 will be over-treated when BS is used for diagnosis. If CT is used, only 8 will receive unnecessary treatment. In terms of missed fractures, BS will miss 2 fractures and CT will miss 56 fractures. Although quality of the included studies is moderate to good, findings are based on only 11 studies and the confidence intervals for the summary estimates are wide for all three tests. Well-designed direct comparison studies including CT, MRI and BS could give valuable additional information.Bone scintigraphy is statistically the best diagnostic modality to establish a definitive diagnosis in clinically suspected fractures when radiographs appear normal. However, physicians must keep in mind that BS is more invasive than the other modalities, with safety issues due to level of radiation exposure, as well as diagnostic delay of at least 72 hours. The number of overtreated patients is substantially lower with CT and MRI.Prior to performing comparative studies, there is a need to raise the initially detected prevalence of true fractures in order to reduce the effect of the relatively low specificity in daily practice. This can be achieved by improving clinical evaluation and initial radiographical assessmen