Critical-Sized Bone Defects: Sequence and Planning.

Bone defects associated with open fractures require a careful approach and planning. At initial presentation, an emergent irrigation and debridement is required. Immediate definitive fixation is frequently safe, with the exception of those injuries that normally require staged management or very severe type IIIB and IIIC injuries. Traumatic wounds that can be approximated primarily should be closed at the time of initial presentation. Wounds that cannot be closed should have a negative pressure wound therapy dressing applied. The need for subsequent debridements remains a clinical judgment, but all nonviable tissue should be removed before definitive coverage. Cefazolin remains the standard of care for all open fractures, and type III injuries also require gram-negative coverage. Both induced membrane technique with staged bone grafting and distraction osteogenesis are excellent options for bony reconstruction. Soft tissue coverage within 1 week of injury seems critical

Embryologically Based Classification Specifies Gender Differences in the Prevalence of Orofacial Cleft Subphenotypes

Background: A recently published validated classification system divides all orofacial cleft (OFC) subphenotypes into groups based on underlying developmental mechanisms, that is, fusion and differentiation, and their timing, that is, early and late periods, in embryogenesis of the primary and secondary palates. Aims: The aim of our study was to define gender differences in prevalence for all subphenotypes in newborns with OFC in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study on children with OFC born from 2006 to 2016. Clefts were classified in early (E-), late (L-), and early/late (EL-) embryonic periods, in primary (P-), secondary (S-), and primary/secondary (PS-) palates, and further divided into fusion (F-), differentiation (D-), and fusion/differentiation (FD-) defects, respectively. Results: A total of 2089 OFC children were analyzed (1311 males and 778 females). Orofacial cleft subphenotypes in females occurred significantly more frequent in the L-period compared to males (66% vs 55%, P = .000), whereas clefts in males occurred significantly more in the EL-periods (40% vs 27%, P = .000). Females had significantly more S-palatal clefts (42% vs 23%, P = .000), while males had significantly more PS-palatal clefts (44% vs 30%, P = .000). Furthermore, the clefts in females were significantly more frequent the result of an F-defect (60% vs 52%, P = .000). Conclusions: Orofacial cleft in females mainly occur in the L-period are mostly S-palatal clefts, and are usually the result of an F-defect. Orofacial cleft in males more commonly occur in the EL-periods, are therefore more often combined PS-palatal clefts, and are more frequent D- and FD-defects

Wounds with complicated shapes tend to develop infection during negative pressure wound therapy

Introduction: While negative pressure wound therapy (NPWP) has been shown to be useful, we felt that patients with wounds of complicated shapes were likely to develop infection during performing NPWT. We conducted an investigation to determine the factors of wound shape responsible for the occurrence of infection. Materials and methods: A total of 55 patients with wounds were treated using NPWT in our unit in 2011. Eight whose wounds formed a pocket, 7 whose wounds were deep, and 40 whose wounds did not come under the above 2 types were eligible for this retrospective study. Results: Fifteen patients (27.3%) with NPWT showed a relapse of local infection. Six of the 8 patients (75.0%) in the wound with pocket group, 5 of the 7 (71.4%) in the deep wound group, and 4 of the 40 (10.0%) in the other wounds developed infection. The wound infection development ratio of the wound with pocket and deep wound groups was significantly higher than that of the other wound group. Conclusion: Wounds with complicated shapes are more likely to develop infectious complications during the management of NPWT. More careful observation is required when negative pressure therapy is used for wounds with a complicated shape

Negative pressure wound therapy: Potential publication bias caused by lack of access to unpublished study results data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is widely applied, although the evidence base is weak. Previous reviews on medical interventions have shown that conclusions based on published data alone may no longer hold after consideration of unpublished data. The main objective of this study was to identify unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on NPWT within the framework of a systematic review.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RCTs comparing NPWT with conventional wound therapy were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. Every database was searched from inception to May 2005. The search was updated in December 2006. Reference lists of original articles and systematic reviews, as well as congress proceedings and online trial registers, were screened for clues to unpublished RCTs. Manufacturers of NPWT devices and authors of conference abstracts were contacted and asked to provide study information. Trials were considered nonrandomised if concealment of allocation to treatment groups was classified as "inadequate". The study status was classified as "completed", "discontinued", "ongoing" or "unclear". The publication status of completed or discontinued RCTs was classified as "published" if a full-text paper on final study results (completed trials) or interim results (discontinued trials) was available, and "unpublished" if this was not the case. The type of sponsorship was also noted for all trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 28 RCTs referring to at least 2755 planned or analysed patients met the inclusion criteria: 13 RCTs had been completed, 6 had been discontinued, 6 were ongoing, and the status of 3 RCTs was unclear. Full-text papers were available on 30% of patients in the 19 completed or discontinued RCTs (495 analysed patients in 10 published RCTs vs. 1154 planned patients in 9 unpublished RCTs). Most information about conference abstracts and unpublished study information referring to trials that were unpublished at the time these documents were generated was obtained from the manufacturer Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI) (19 RCTs), followed by The Cochrane Library (18) and a systematic review (15). We were able to obtain some information on the methods of unpublished RCTs, but results data were either not available or requests for results data were not answered; the results of unpublished RCTs could therefore not be considered in the review. One manufacturer, KCI, sponsored the majority of RCTs (19/28; 68%). The sponsorship of the remaining trials was unclear.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Multi-source comprehensive searches identify unpublished RCTs. However, lack of access to unpublished study results data raises doubts about the completeness of the evidence base on NPWT.</p

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers

Background Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use. Objectives To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. Search methods For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Selection criteria Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants. Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with ’moist wound healing’. One study had a 24-week followup period, and two had a six-week follow-up period, the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more ’Risk of bias’ domains and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12 participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse events

Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary study selection between systematic reviews is inconsistent, and reviews on the same topic may reach different conclusions. Our main objective was to compare systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) regarding their agreement in primary study selection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis was conducted within the framework of a systematic review (a full review and a subsequent rapid report) on NPWT prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).</p> <p>For the IQWiG review and rapid report, 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched to identify systematic reviews and primary studies on NPWT versus conventional wound therapy in patients with acute or chronic wounds. All databases were searched from inception to December 2006.</p> <p>For the present analysis, reviews on NPWT were classified as eligible systematic reviews if multiple sources were systematically searched and the search strategy was documented. To ensure comparability between reviews, only reviews published in or after December 2004 and only studies published before June 2004 were considered.</p> <p>Eligible reviews were compared in respect of the methodology applied and the selection of primary studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 5 systematic reviews (including the IQWiG review) and 16 primary studies were analysed. The reviews included between 4 and 13 primary studies published before June 2004. Two reviews considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Three reviews considered both RCTs and non-RCTs. The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs (24 of 25 options) and 57% for non-RCTs (12 of 21 options). Due to considerable disagreement in the citation and selection of non-RCTs, we contacted the review authors for clarification (this was not initially planned); all authors or institutions responded. According to published information and the additional information provided, most differences between reviews arose from variations in inclusion criteria or inter-author study classification, as well as from different reporting styles (citation or non-citation) for excluded studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The citation and selection of primary studies differ between systematic reviews on NPWT, particularly with regard to non-RCTs. Uniform methodological and reporting standards need to be applied to ensure comparability between reviews as well as the validity of their conclusions.</p

Topical Negative Pressure Therapy in Wound Care: Effectiveness and guidelines for clinical application

textabstractThe aim in the treatment of any type of wound is to achieve normal and timely healing. Complicated wound healing may affect functional ability and almost always involves appearance or “looks” despite reconstructive measures. Recent figures on either the incidence of wounds or the total cost of wound care in the Netherlands are not available. A reporting system to the public health inspection authority (the so-called quality indicators) was introduced by the Dutch government in order to create more transparency on hospital-related complications in 2003. Since then, complication registration is obligatory in every hospital. This resulted in the registration of the cost of illness in a small group of patients with pressure ulcer wounds. The cost for the pressure ulcer group alone ranges from a low estimate of $362 million to a high estimate of$2.8 billion (1). The cost for the diseases of skin and the subcutis was estimated at € 886 million (1.3% of the total health care costs) in 2005 (2). These figures reflect only the direct costs. They neither reflect the pain, frustration, economic loss nor impaired quality of life of the patients and their families, nor the burden on the health care system in general