Does Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Change Hand Infection Outcomes? Cost Analysis of a Randomized Prospective Trial in a County Hospital:

Decreasing Surgical Site Infections in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level 1 Evidence

BACKGROUND

Although many interventions are implemented to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) in plastic surgery, their supporting evidence is inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of methods for decreasing SSIs in plastic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the effects of SSI prevention methods. All the studies were assessed for quality of evidence according to the GRADE assessment.

RESULTS

Fifty Level 1 randomized controlled trials were included. The most common interventions for preventing SSIs were antibiotic prophylaxis, showering, prepping, draping, and the use of dressings. Current evidence suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis is largely unnecessary and overused in many plastic surgical procedures, with the exception of head and neck oncologic, oral craniofacial, and traumatic hand surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic surgery is dependent on surgery type. There is a lack evidence that showering and prepping with chlorohexidine and povidone reduces SSIs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1

Characterizing Hand Infections in an Underserved Population: The Role of Diabetic Status in Antibiotic Choice and Infection Location

Introduction Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in underserved communities are at greater risk for hand infections. We aimed to describe the features of hand infections presenting to an urban hospital via laboratories, microbiology, and antibiotic choice with respect to diabetic status. Materials and Methods Patients presenting with any hand infection were reviewed and stratified by DM status and infection location. Labs, culture results, antibiotic regimens, and significant predictors of laboratories or infection location were analyzed. Results Fifty-three patients were included: DM ( n = 24), no-DM ( n = 24), and unknown status ( n = 5). Culture rates were comparable between all groups. Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was significantly higher in DM (76.19 vs. 51.33); mean white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were comparable. Diabetics had higher odds of increased ESR (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03). Diabetics received vancomycin/piperacillin/tazobactam (VAN/PTZ) significantly more often (52% vs. 8%). Providers treated DM with VAN/PTZ or any VAN-containing regimen more often than with any other regimen. Proximal infections had significantly higher mean CRP (136.9 vs. 50.5) and WBC (5.19 vs. 3.9) and higher CRP (OR = 1.02). Conclusion This study highlights the need for systematic criteria to better risk- stratify patients for appropriate antibiotic treatment. It may not be appropriate to treat both groups differently, as overly aggressive antibiotic selection may contribute to drug-resistance development.

Infections of the hand: an overview

Infections of the hand are common entities that are frequently encountered by orthopaedic surgeons and primary care physicians.

A high clinical suspicion and a thorough medical history with information about the social and working history of the patients, correct identification of the type and cause of the infection, and prompt initiation of appropriate treatment by the infectious diseases physicians and orthopaedic surgeons are required.

Late diagnosis and inappropriate treatment may be a significant cause of morbidity for the hand and mortality for the patients. This article reviews the clinical spectrum and microbiology of the most common infections of the hand, and discusses the current concepts for their treatment. The aim is to increase the awareness of the treating physicians of the diagnosis and management of infections in the hand.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:183-193. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180082

Hand Infections

Infections are common in hand surgery and proper management is important to achieve optimal outcomes. Although most cases are not urgent, less common, severe infections such as flexor tenosynovitis and necrotizing fasciitis require urgent identification with both medical and surgical management. It is common for diagnoses to be missed or delayed because clinical and laboratory indicators are often variably present. Delayed identification and management can result in poor outcomes with permanent deficits. This article will provide a review of hand infections with a focus on identifying serious hand infections requiring urgent or emergent treatment, and distinguishing these from less urgent scenarios.

The Effect of Smoking on Necrosis Rate in Digital Replantation and Revascularization with Prostaglandin E1 Therapy: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Most microsurgeons believe that smoking and severity of injury adversely affect the outcome of digital replantation surgery. As countermeasures, several pharmacologic agents have been used for the perioperative period. The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine whether the rate of necrosis is appreciably different across smokers versus nonsmokers with prostaglandin E1 therapy.

METHODS

The authors' study subjects included 144 patients (184 digits) who underwent replantation or revascularization between August of 2013 and August of 2015.The primary outcome was the incidence of total necrosis after replantation surgery, and the secondary outcomes were the rate of overall necrosis, proportion of total necrosis to overall necrosis, and total success. Intravenous administration of prostaglandin E1 was performed at the rate of 120 μg/day for 7 days after surgery in all patients. These outcomes of each injury type were compared between smoking and nonsmoking groups.

RESULTS

Among the 184 injured digits, the incidence of total necrosis in smokers (23 percent) was higher than that in nonsmokers (17 percent), although no significant difference was shown (p = 0.36). The adjusted odds ratio was 1.17 (95 percent CI, 0.51 to 2.69). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The authors' retrospective study found no significant difference in the formation or extent of necrosis after replantation or revascularization between smoking and nonsmoking groups when all patients were treated with prostaglandin E1.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; 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. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Hand infection patients presenting to an orthopaedic unit: An audit of incidence and demographics at a rural hospital

OBJECTIVE

Hand infections are a common presentation to health services in the Northern Territory; however, little is known about these patients. This study aims to identify incidence, treatment and co-morbidities of hand infection patients and to pinpoint factors associated with poor outcome.

DESIGN

A retrospective study of all patients presenting to Alice Springs Hospital with a hand infection during 2012.

SETTING

Orthopaedic Unit at Alice Springs Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients admitted with a hand infection were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Admission duration, duration waited before first presentation, re-admission rate, duration of re-admission and rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen cases of hand infections were admitted to Alice Springs Hospital during 2012, of which 87 (76%) were in Indigenous patients. Indigenous patients (P = 0.001) and older patients (P = 0.038) had significantly longer admissions. Indigenous patients were 9.52 times (P = 0.038) more likely to be re-admitted than non-Indigenous patients. The rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was 24.6%, and this was associated with smoking (P = 0.049) and substance abuse (P = 0.036). Formal follow-up was not related to indirect measures of hand infection severity, such as admission duration or re-admissions.

CONCLUSION

Hand infections are a common presentation to Alice Springs Hospital. Indigenous people are admitted 2.38 times longer after adjusting for age and alcohol abuse. They have a more than ninefold chance of being re-admitted to hospital than non-Indigenous people following a hand infection.