Prophylactic antibiotic regimens in tumor surgery (PARITY) survey

BACKGROUND: Deep infection following endoprosthetic limb reconstruction for sarcoma of the long bones is a devastating complication occurring in 15% of sarcoma patients. Optimizing infection protocols and conducting definitive surgical trials are critical to improving outcomes. In this study, the PARITY (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery) investigators aimed to examine surgeon preferences in antibiotic prophylaxis and perceptions about current evidence, as well as to ascertain interest in resolving uncertainty in the evidence with clinical trials. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey to examine current practice in the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in Musculoskeletal Tumor Surgery. The survey was approved by our institution’s Ethics Board and emailed to all Active Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) and Canadian Orthopaedic Oncology Society (CANOOS). Survey answers were collected using an anonymous online survey tool. RESULTS: Of the 96 surgeons who received the questionnaire, 72 responded (75% response rate (% CI: 65.5, 82.5%)). While almost all respondents agreed antibiotic regimens were important in reducing the risk of infection, respondents varied considerably in their choices of antibiotic regimens and dosages. Although 73% (95% CI: 61, 82%) of respondents prescribe a first generation cephalosporin, 25% favor additional coverage with an aminoglycoside and/or Vancomycin. Of those who prescribe a cephalosporin, 33% prescribe a dosage of one gram for all patients and the reminder prescribe up to 2 grams based on body weight. One in three surgeons (95% CI: 25, 48%) believes antibiotics could be discontinued after 24 hours but 40% (95% CI: 30, 53%) continue antibiotics until the suction drain is removed. Given the ongoing uncertainty in evidence to guide best practices, 90% (95% CI: 81, 95%) of respondents agreed that they would change their practice if a large randomized controlled trial showed clear benefit of an antibiotic drug regimen different from what they are currently using. Further support for a clinical trial was observed by an overwhelming surgeon interest (87%; 95% CI: 77, 93%) in participating in a multi-center randomized controlled study. CONCLUSION: The current lack of guidelines for the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in Musculoskeletal Tumor Surgery has left Orthopaedic Oncologists with varying opinions and practices. The lack of current evidence and strong surgeon support for participating in a definitive study provides strong rationale for clinical trials

Large variations in the practice patterns of surgical antiseptic preparation solutions in patients with open and closed extremity fractures : a cross-sectional survey

Surgically-managed fractures, particularly open fractures, are associated with high rates of surgical site infections (SSIs). To reduce the risk of an SSI, orthopaedic surgeons routinely clean open fracture wounds in the emergency department (ED) and then apply a bandage to the open wound. Prior to the surgical incision, it is standard practice to prepare the fracture region with an antiseptic skin solution as an additional SSI prevention strategy. Multiple antiseptic solutions are available. To explore the variation in practice patterns among orthopaedic surgeons regarding antiseptic solution use in the ED and antiseptic preparatory techniques for fracture surgery. We developed a 27-item survey and surveyed members of several orthopaedic associations. Two hundred and-ten surveys were completed. 71.0% of respondents irrigate the open wound and skin in the ED, primarily with saline alone (59.7%) or iodine-based solutions (32.9%). 90.5% of responders indicated that they dress the open wound in the ED, with 41.0% applying a saline-soaked bandage and 33.7% applying an iodine-soaked dressing (33.7%). In their surgical preparation of open fractures, 41.0% of respondents used an iodine-based solution, 26.7% used a chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-based solution, and 31.4% used a combination of the two. In closed fractures, 43.8% of respondents used a CHG-based solution, 28.1% used an iodine-based solution, and 27.1% used a combination. Despite theoretical concerns about the use of alcohol in open wounds, 51.4% used alcohol-based solutions or alcohol alone during skin preparation of open fractures. A lack of consensus exists regarding use of antiseptic surgical preparation solutions for fractures. High-quality clinical research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different surgical antiseptic preparation solutions on patient outcomes in fracture populations. The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-018-0440-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Fluid lavage in patients with open fracture wounds (FLOW): an international survey of 984 surgeons

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although surgeons acknowledge the importance of irrigating open fracture wounds, the choice of irrigating fluid and delivery pressure remains controversial. Our objective was to clarify current opinion with regard to the irrigation of open fracture wounds.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used a cross-sectional survey and a sample-to-redundancy strategy to examine surgeons' preferences in the initial management of open fracture wounds. We mailed this survey to members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and delivered it to attendees of an international fracture course (AO, Davos, Switzerland).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 1,764 surgeons who received the questionnaire, 984 (55.8%) responded. In the management of open wounds, the majority of surgeons surveyed, 676 (70.5%), favoured normal saline alone. Bacitracin solution was used routinely by only 161 surgeons (16.8%). The majority of surgeons, 695 (71%) used low pressures when delivering the irrigating solution to the wound. There was, however considerable variation in what pressures constituted high versus low pressure lavage. The overwhelming majority of surgeons, 889 (94.2%), reported they would change their practice if a large randomized controlled trial showed a clear benefit of an irrigating solution – especially if it was different from the solution they used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of surgeons favour both normal saline and low pressure lavage for the initial management of open fracture wounds. However, opinions varied as regards the comparative efficacy of different solutions, the use of additives and high versus low pressure. Surgeons have expressed considerable support for a trial evaluating both irrigating solutions and pressures.</p

Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To compare quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes

A Trial of Wound Irrigation in the Initial Management of Open Fracture Wounds

Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND The management of open fractures requires wound irrigation and dridement to remove contaminants, but the effectiveness of various pressures and solutions for irrigation remains controversial. We investigated the effects of castile soap versus normal saline irrigation delivered by means of high, low, or very low irrigation pressure. METHODS In this study with a 2-by-3 factorial design, conducted at 41 clinical centers, we randomly assigned patients who had an open fracture of an extremity to undergo irrigation with one of three irrigation pressures (high pressure [\u3e20 psi], low pressure [5 to 10 psi], or very low pressure [1 to 2 psi]) and one of two irrigation solutions (castile soap or normal saline). The primary end point was reoperation within 12 months after the index surgery for promotion of wound or bone healing or treatment of a wound infection. RESULTS A total of 2551 patients underwent randomization, of whom 2447 were deemed eligible and included in the final analyses. Reoperation occurred in 109 of 826 patients (13.2%) in the high-pressure group, 103 of 809 (12.7%) in the low-pressure group, and 111 of 812 (13.7%) in the very-low-pressure group. Hazard ratios for the three pairwise comparisons were as follows: for low versus high pressure, 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.20; P = 0.53), for high versus very low pressure, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.33; P = 0.89), and for low versus very low pressure, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.23; P = 0.62). Reoperation occurred in 182 of 1229 patients (14.8%) in the soap group and in 141 of 1218 (11.6%) in the saline group (hazard ratio, 1.32, 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.66; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The rates of reoperation were similar regardless of irrigation pressure, a finding that indicates that very low pressure is an acceptable, low-cost alternative for the irrigation of open fractures. The reoperation rate was higher in the soap group than in the saline group. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; FLOW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00788398

Risk Factors Associated With Infection in Open Fractures of the Upper and Lower Extremities

Introduction: Open fractures are associated with a high risk of infection. The prevention of infection is the single most important goal, influencing perioperative care of patients with open fractures. Using data from 2,500 participants with open fracture wounds enrolled in the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial, we conducted a multivariable analysis to determine the factors that are associated with infections 12 months postfracture. Methods: Eighteen predictor variables were identified for infection a priori from baseline data, fracture characteristics, and surgical data from the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial. Twelve predictor variables were identified for deep infection, which included both surgically and nonoperatively managed infections.We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to identify the factors associated with infection. Irrigation solution and pressure were included as variables in the analysis. The results were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associated P values. All tests were two tailed with alpha = 0.05. Results: Factors associated with any infection were fracture location (tibia: HR 5.13 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 3.28 to 8.02; other lower extremity: HR 3.63 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 2.38 to 5.55; overall P\u3c 0.001), low energy injury (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46; P = 0.019), degree of wound contamination (severe: HR 2.12 versus mild, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.32; moderate: HR 1.08 versus mild, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.49; overall P = 0.004), and need for flap coverage (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.99; P = 0.017). Discussion: The results of this study provide a better understanding of which factors are associated with a greater risk of infection in open fractures. In addition, it can allow for surgeons to better counsel patients regarding prognosis, helping patients to understand their individual risk of infection

Radial shortening following a fracture of the proximal radius: Degree of shortening and short-term outcome in 22 proximal radial fractures

Background and purpose: The Essex-Lopresti lesion is thought to be rare, with a varying degree of disruption to forearm stability probable. We describe the range of radial shortening that occurs following a fracture of the proximal radius, as well as the short-term outcome in these patients. Patients and methods Over an 18-month period, we prospectively assessed all patients with a radiographically confirmed proximal radial fracture. Patients noted to have ipsilateral wrist pain at initial presentation underwent bilateral radiography to determine whether there was disruption of the distal radio-ulnar joint suggestive of an Essex-Lopresti lesion. Outcome was assessed after a mean of 6 (1.5-12) months using clinical and radiographic results, including the Mayo elbow score (MES) and the short musculoskeletal function assessment (SMFA) questionnaire. One patient with a Mason type-I fracture was lost to follow-up after initial presentation. Results 60 patients had ipsilateral wrist pain at the initial assessment of 237 proximal radial fractures. Radial shortening of ≥ 2mm (range: 2-4mm) was seen in 22 patients (mean age 48 (19-79) years, 16 females). The most frequent mechanism of injury was a fall from standing height (10/22). 21 fractures were classified as being Mason type-I or type-II, all of which were managed nonoperatively. One Mason type-III fracture underwent acute radial head replacement. Functional outcome was assessed in 21 patients. We found an excellent or good MES in 18 of the 20 patients with a Mason type-I or type-II injury. Interpretation The incidence of the Essex-Lopresti lesion type is possibly under-reported as there is a spectrum of injuries, and subtle disruptions often go unidentified. A full assessment of all patients with a proximal radial fracture is required in order to identify these injuries, and the index of suspicion is raised as the complexity of the fracture increases.</p

Risk Factors Associated With Infection in Open Fractures of the Upper and Lower Extremities

Introduction: Open fractures are associated with a high risk of infection. The prevention of infection is the single most important goal, influencing perioperative care of patients with open fractures. Using data from 2,500 participants with open fracture wounds enrolled in the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial, we conducted a multivariable analysis to determine the factors that are associated with infections 12 months postfracture. Methods: Eighteen predictor variables were identified for infection a priori from baseline data, fracture characteristics, and surgical data from the Fluid Lavage of Open Wounds trial. Twelve predictor variables were identified for deep infection, which included both surgically and nonoperatively managed infections.We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to identify the factors associated with infection. Irrigation solution and pressure were included as variables in the analysis. The results were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and associated P values. All tests were two tailed with alpha = 0.05. Results: Factors associated with any infection were fracture location (tibia: HR 5.13 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 3.28 to 8.02; other lower extremity: HR 3.63 versus upper extremity, 95% CI 2.38 to 5.55; overall P\u3c 0.001), low energy injury (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46; P = 0.019), degree of wound contamination (severe: HR 2.12 versus mild, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.32; moderate: HR 1.08 versus mild, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.49; overall P = 0.004), and need for flap coverage (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.99; P = 0.017). Discussion: The results of this study provide a better understanding of which factors are associated with a greater risk of infection in open fractures. In addition, it can allow for surgeons to better counsel patients regarding prognosis, helping patients to understand their individual risk of infection

Delays in hospital admissions in patients with fractures across 18 low-income and middle-income countries (INORMUS): a prospective observational study

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery established the Three Delays framework, categorising delays in accessing timely surgical care into delays in seeking care (First Delay), reaching care (Second Delay), and receiving care (Third Delay). Globally, knowledge gaps regarding delays for fracture care, and the lack of large prospective studies informed the rationale for our international observational study. We investigated delays in hospital admission as a surrogate for accessing timely fracture care and explored factors associated with delayed hospital admission. Methods: In this prospective observational substudy of the ongoing International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care (INORMUS), we enrolled patients with fracture across 49 hospitals in 18 low-income and middle-income countries, categorised into the regions of China, Africa, India, south and east Asia, and Latin America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had been admitted to a hospital within 3 months of sustaining an orthopaedic trauma. We collected demographic injury data and time to hospital admission. Our primary outcome was the number of patients with open and closed fractures who were delayed in their admission to a treating hospital. Delays for patients with open fractures were defined as being more than 2 h from the time of injury (in accordance with the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery) and for those with closed fractures as being a delay of more than 24 h. Secondary outcomes were reasons for delay for all patients with either open or closed fractures who were delayed for more than 24 h. We did logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors of delays of more than 2 h in patients with open fractures and delays of more than 24 h in patients with closed fractures. Logistic regressions were adjusted for region, age, employment, urban living, health insurance, interfacility referral, method of transportation, number of fractures, mechanism of injury, and fracture location. We further calculated adjusted relative risk (RR) from adjusted odds ratios, adjusted for the same variables. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150980, and is ongoing. Findings: Between April 3, 2014, and May 10, 2019, we enrolled 31 255 patients with fractures, with a median age of 45 years (IQR 31–62), of whom 19 937 (63·8%) were men, and 14 524 (46·5%) had lower limb fractures, making them the most common fractures. Of 5256 patients with open fractures, 3778 (71·9%) were not admitted to hospital within 2 h. Of 25 999 patients with closed fractures, 7141 (27·5%) were delayed by more than 24 h. Of all regions, Latin America had the greatest proportions of patients with delays (173 [88·7%] of 195 patients with open fractures; 426 [44·7%] of 952 with closed fractures). Among patients delayed by more than 24 h, the most common reason for delays were interfacility referrals (3755 [47·7%] of 7875) and Third Delays (cumulatively interfacility referral and delay in emergency department: 3974 [50·5%]), while Second Delays (delays in reaching care) were the least common (423 [5·4%]). Compared with other methods of transportation (eg, walking, rickshaw), ambulances led to delay in transporting patients with open fractures to a treating hospital (adjusted RR 0·66, 99% CI 0·46–0·93). Compared with patients with closed lower limb fractures, patients with closed spine (adjusted RR 2·47, 99% CI 2·17–2·81) and pelvic (1·35, 1·10–1·66) fractures were most likely to have delays of more than 24 h before admission to hospital. Interpretation: In low-income and middle-income countries, timely hospital admission remains largely inaccessible, especially among patients with open fractures. Reducing hospital-based delays in receiving care, and, in particular, improving interfacility referral systems are the most substantial tools for reducing delays in admissions to hospital. Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster Surgical Associates, and Hamilton Health Sciences