scholarly journals Rehospitalisation following foot and ankle trauma surgery

Injury Extra ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (12) ◽  
pp. 134
Author(s):  
N.K. Rath ◽  
A.R. Guha ◽  
A. Khurana ◽  
R. Thomas ◽  
S. Hemmadi ◽  
...  
Orthopedics ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 504-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Moriatis Wolf ◽  
Christopher W DiGiovanni

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumit Kumar Jain ◽  
Mohammad Yahya Dar ◽  
Sanjeev Kumar ◽  
Arun Yadav ◽  
Stephen R. Kearns

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 495-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Wood ◽  
Jeffrey C. Christensen ◽  
John M. Schuberth

The use of arthroscopy in the management of acute traumatic conditions of the foot and ankle has increased in recent years, primarily because of an appreciation of fracture morphology and the utility of reducing the surgical footprint. This article presents an overview of the use of this modality in foot and ankle trauma and presents an anatomical survey of the various fractures where arthroscopic assistance can be of benefit. In addition, a discussion of the seminal articles on this subject is included. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV: Review


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 582-589
Author(s):  
Fay R. K. Sanders ◽  
Rosanne M.G. Kistemaker ◽  
Mirjam van ’t Hul ◽  
Tim Schepers

Background: The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) after foot or ankle surgery remains high, despite the implementation of antibiotic prophylaxis. Recently, guidelines suggest a single dose of 2 g instead of 1 g of cefazolin for implant surgery; this decision is largely based on pharmacokinetic studies. However, the clinical effect of this higher dose has never been investigated in foot and ankle surgery. This retrospective cohort study investigated the effect of 2 g compared with 1 g of prophylactic cefazolin on the incidence of SSIs in foot and ankle surgery. Methods: All patients undergoing trauma-related surgery of the foot, ankle, or lower leg between September 2015 and March 2019 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of an SSI. SSIs were compared between patients receiving 1 g and 2 g of cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis, using a propensity score to correct for possible confounders. Results: A total of 293 patients received 1 g and 126 patients received 2 g of cefazolin. The overall number of SSIs was 19 (6.5%) in the 1-g group and 6 (4.8%) in the 2-g group. Corrected for possible confounders, this was not statistically significant (OR, 0.770; P = .608). Conclusion: Even though the decrease in SSI rate from 6.5% to 4.8% was found not to be statistically significant, it might be clinically relevant considering the reduction in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Research linking pharmacokinetic and clinical results of prophylactic cefazolin is needed to establish whether or not the current recommendations and guidelines are sufficient for preventing SSIs in foot and ankle surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamran S. Hamid ◽  
Selene G. Parekh ◽  
Samuel B. Adams

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinhua Jiang ◽  
Baoqing Yu ◽  
Wei Qu ◽  
Jiawen He

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document