scholarly journals 171 Improving compliance of wound photography in open fracture patients

Author(s):  
Muhamed M Farhan-Alanie ◽  
Nicola D Mackay ◽  
Jayne Ward ◽  
Richard King
2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1802-1808
Author(s):  
Julie Bruce ◽  
Ruth Knight ◽  
Nick Parsons ◽  
Ria Betteridge ◽  
Amy Verdon ◽  
...  

Aims Deep surgical site infection (SSI) is common after lower limb fracture. We compared the diagnosis of deep SSI using alternative methods of data collection and examined the agreement of clinical photography and in-person clinical assessment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria after lower limb fracture surgery. Methods Data from two large, UK-based multicentre randomized controlled major trauma trials investigating SSI and wound healing after surgical repair of open lower limb fractures that could not be primarily closed (UK WOLLF), and surgical incisions for fractures that were primarily closed (UK WHiST), were examined. Trial interventions were standard wound care management and negative pressure wound therapy after initial surgical debridement. Wound outcomes were collected from 30 days to six weeks. We compared the level of agreement between wound photography and clinical assessment of CDC-defined SSI. We are also assessed the level of agreement between blinded independent assessors of the photographs. Results Rates of CDC-defined deep SSI were 7.6% (35/460) after open fracture and 6.3% (95/1519) after closed incisional repair. Photographs were obtained for 77% and 73% of WOLLF and WHiST cohorts respectively (all participants n = 1,478). Agreement between photographic-SSI and CDC-SSI was fair for open fracture wounds (83%; k = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.42)) and for closed incisional wounds (88%; k = 0.29 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.37)) although the rate of photographically detected deep SSIs was twice as high as CDC-SSI (12% vs 6%). Agreement between different assessors for photographic-SSI (WOLLF 88%, k = 0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.72); WHiST 89%; k = 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69)); and wound healing was good (WOLLF 90%; k = 0.80 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.86); WHiST 87%; k = 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.64)). Conclusion Although wound photography was feasible within the research context and inter-rater assessor agreement substantial, digital photographs used in isolation overestimated deep SSI rates, when compared to CDC criteria. Wound photography should not replace clinical assessment in pragmatic trials but may be useful for screening purposes where surgical infection outcomes are paramount. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1802–1808.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
Davor Mijatovic ◽  
Sanda Smud Orehovec ◽  
Tomislav Dapic ◽  
Vilena Vrbanovic Mijatovic
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-23
Author(s):  
Alejandro Jardón Gómez ◽  
Ana Cristina King ◽  
Carlos Pacheco Díaz

The clinical presentation of a proximal femoral fracture is completely different between young and adult patients. Unlike closed proximal femoral fractures, the incidence of exposed fractures is found in the young population between 15 and 30 years of age. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head is one the complications we can find in this type of fractures. Avascular necrosis (AVN or osteonecrosis) is defined as the interruption of blood supply to the femoral head due to trauma, infectionalcohol or steroid use, resulting in bone necrosis, joint collapse and osteoarthrosis. The treatment will depend on the clinical presentation, age of the patient and when the diagnosis is made. This is a case report of a 16-year-old patient with a gunshot wound on the hip. Surgical cleansing and closed reduction plus internal fixation with a nail in the center of the spine were performed. A 3-year clinical and radiographic follow up was made, observing the evolution of the fracture and the subsequent avascular necrosis that the patient presented. Key words: Proximal femoral fracture; hip; avascular necrosis (AVN, osteonecrosis); open fracture; osteoarthritis.


2017 ◽  
Vol 224 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick C. Sanger ◽  
Vlad V. Simianu ◽  
Cameron E. Gaskill ◽  
Cheryl A.L. Armstrong ◽  
Andrea L. Hartzler ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Petrisor ◽  
◽  
Kyle Jeray ◽  
Emil Schemitsch ◽  
Beate Hanson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Khajuria

Abstract Introduction The BOAST/BAPRAS updated the open fracture guidelines in December 2017 to replace BOAST 4 Open fracture guidelines; the changes gave clearer recommendations for timing of surgery and recommendations for reducing infection rates. Method Our work retrospectively evaluates the surgical management of open tibia fractures at a Major Trauma Centre (MTC), over a one-year period in light of key standards (13,14 and 15 of the standards for open fractures). Results The vast majority of cases (93%) had definitive internal stabilization only when immediate soft tissue coverage was achievable. 90% of cases were not managed as ‘clean cases’ following the initial debridement. 50% of cases underwent definitive closure within 72 hours. The reasons for definitive closure beyond 72hours were: patients medically unwell (20%), multiple wound debridement’s (33%) and no medical or surgical reason was clearly stated (47%). Conclusions The implementation of a ‘clean surgery’ protocol following surgical debridement is essential in diminishing risk of recontamination and infection. Hence, this must be the gold standard and should be clearly documented in operation notes. The extent of availability of a joint Orthoplastic theatre list provides a key limiting step in definitive bony fixation and soft tissue coverage of open tibia fractures.


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e52
Author(s):  
Kathleen M. Kollitz ◽  
Jennifer W. Hsu ◽  
Erin M. Parsons ◽  
Jerry I. Huang

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 432-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
O.D. Ojo ◽  
K.S. Oluwadiya ◽  
I.C. Ikem ◽  
L.M. Oginni ◽  
A.K. Ako-Nai ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document