Prophylactic surgical drainage is associated with increased infection following intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal long bone fractures: A prospective cohort study in Nigeria

Introduction: Prophylactic surgical drains are commonly used in Nigeria following intramedullary nailing (IMN) of long bone diaphyseal fractures. However, evidence in the literature suggests that drains do not confer any benefit and predispose clean wounds to infection. This study compares outcomes between patients treated with and without prophylactic surgical drainage following diaphyseal long bone fractures treated with IMN. Methods: A prospective cohort study with randomization was conducted at a tertiary referral center in Enugu, Nigeria. Investigators included skeletally mature patients with diaphyseal long bone (femur, tibia, humerus) fractures treated with SIGN IMN. Patients followed-up at 5, 14, and 30 days post-operatively. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI) rate. Secondary outcomes included post-operative pain at 6 and 12 h, need for blood transfusion, wound characteristics (swelling, ecchymosis, and gaping), need for dressing changes, and length of hospital stay. Results: Of the enrolled patients, 76 (96%) of 79 completed 30-day follow-up. SSI rate was associated with patients who received a prophylactic drain versus those who did not (23.7% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.007). There were no significant differences in transfusion need (p = 0.22), wound swelling (p = 0.74), wound ecchymosis (p = 1.00), wound gaping (p = 1.00), dressing change need (p = 0.31), post-operative pain at 6 h (p = 0.25) or 12 h (p = 0.57), or length of stay (p = 0.95). Discussion: Surgical drain placement following IMN of diaphyseal long bone fractures is associated with a significantly higher risk of SSI. Reducing surgical drain use following orthopaedic injuries in lower resource settings may translate to reduced infection rates.

A comparison of the use and non-use of closed suction wound drainage in open reduction and internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine if the routine use of closed suction wound drainage is justified following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of femoral shaft fractures.

METHOD

This was a prospective comparative study of two study groups: those with post-operative closed suction drainage (WCSD) and those not with closed suction drainage (NWCSD).

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients, twenty-eight each for the two cohorts, were recruited for this study. Five patients (17.9%) in the WCSD group and only one patient (3.6%) in NWCSD group had surgical site infection (p = 0.20). Four patients (14.3%) in the WCSD group and nine (32.1%) in NWCSD group had wound dressing reinforcements (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

There was generally no statistically significant difference in the incidence of wound infections, strike through bloodstain with wound dressing reinforcement and duration of hospital stay in patients with and without closed suction wound drainage after ORIF of femoral shaft fractures. The duration of the injury may however influence the decision to use or not use wound drain after surgery.

Definition of infection after fracture fixation: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate current practice

INTRODUCTION

One of the most challenging musculoskeletal complications in modern trauma surgery is infection after fracture fixation (IAFF). Although infections are clinically obvious in many cases, a clear definition of the term IAFF is crucial, not only for the evaluation of published research data but also for the establishment of uniform treatment concepts. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the definitions used in the scientific literature to describe infectious complications after internal fixation of fractures. The hypothesis of this study was that the majority of fracture-related literature do not define IAFF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Medline (OvidSP), PubMed publisher and Web-of-Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fracture fixation. Data were collected on the definition of infectious complications after fracture fixation used in each study. Study selection was accomplished through two phases. During the first phase, titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and the full texts of relevant articles were obtained. During the second phase, full-text articles were reviewed. All definitions were literally extracted and collected in a database. Then, a classification was designed to rate the quality of the description of IAFF.

RESULTS

A total of 100 RCT's were identified in the search. Of 100 studies, only two (2%) cited a validated definition to describe IAFF. In 28 (28%) RCTs, the authors used a self-designed definition. In the other 70 RCTs, (70%) there was no description of a definition in the Methods section, although all of the articles described infections as an outcome parameter in the Results section.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that IAFF is not defined in a large majority of the fracture-related literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted with the objective to explore this important issue. The lack of a consensus definition remains a problem in current orthopedic trauma research and treatment and this void should be addressed in the near future.