scholarly journals Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

BMC Surgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manouk Backes ◽  
Siem A Dingemans ◽  
Niels WL Schep ◽  
Frank W Bloemers ◽  
Bart Van Dijkman ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubens Murilo de Athayde Prudencio ◽  
Fabíola Soares Moreira Campos ◽  
Ana Beatriz Alkmim Teixeira Loyola ◽  
Ivanildo Archangelo Junior ◽  
Neil Ferreira Novo ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahid Aquil ◽  
Hemant Sharma ◽  
Bijad Alharbi ◽  
Katharine Pacoli ◽  
Patrick P. Luke ◽  
...  

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the impact of thrombo-embolic-deterrent + intermittent pneumatic compression (TED + IPC) vs. muscle pump activator (MPA) on incisional wound healing in kidney and simultaneous pancreas- kidney (SPK) transplant recipients. Methods: We conducted a single-centre, randomized controlled trial in which 104 patients (kidney n=94; SPK n=10) were randomly assigned to wear TED + IPC (n= 52) or MPA (n=52) for the first six days following surgery. Patient demographics, postoperative outcomes, and incisional wound images were taken using a HIPAA-compliant application on postoperative days (POD) 3, 5, and 30, and assessed using the validated Southampton Wound Care Score. Results: There were no demographic differences between the groups. The MPA group had a significant improvement in wound healing on POD 3 (p=0.04) that persisted until POD 5 (p=0.0003). At POD 30, both groups were similar in wound healing outcomes (p=0.51). Bayesian inferential analysis revealed that the use of TED + IPC following transplantation had inferior outcomes compared to the use of MPA with sequential moderate evidence. The rate of complex wound infections was significantly greater in the TED + IPC group compared to the MPA group (29% vs. 12%, respectively; p=0.03). Patients were more satisfied with the use of a MPA device than TED + IPC. No major complications were encountered in either group. Conclusions: The use of a MPA device in the immediate postoperative period leads to a significant improvement in immediate and early wound healing, and decreased number of complex wound infections following kidney and SPK transplantation compared to standard TED + IPC therapy. Patients were more satisfied with the use of a MPA device than TED + IPC.


Injury ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (9) ◽  
pp. 1913-1918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Basir Ghafouri ◽  
Morteza Zare ◽  
Azam Bazrafshan ◽  
Niloofar Abazarian ◽  
Tayeb Ramim

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Elsaqa ◽  
Mahmoud A. Karim ◽  
Walid Ebeid ◽  
Mohamed Youness

Objectives: The objectives of the study was to compare the effectiveness of 1 day versus 3 days post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis in decreasing surgical site infection (SSI) rate after arthroplasty surgery. Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted over 1 year, in Cairo University Hospitals. The study included adult patients, who were scheduled for arthroplasty. Sixty patients were divided into two groups, 30 patients in each. The first group of patients received cefazolin for 1 day postoperatively (1-day group) and the other group for 3 days postoperatively (3-days group). Patients were randomized using the sealed opaque envelope method. Results: There were 32 females and 28 males. The mean patient age was 52 years (range 20–85 years). Wound infection developed in four cases (one case from the 1-day group and three cases from the 3-days group). All infections occurred within the early post-operative period, and completely resolved after proper management. Correlating the SSI to the type of surgery, operative time, the associated medical co-morbidities, and the duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis was not statistically significant. Conclusion: This study suggests that there is no significant difference in the prevalence of SSI between 1 day and 3 days of antimicrobial prophylaxis after primary joint arthroplasty within the average post-operative follow-up period of 3 months.


2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (6) ◽  
pp. 1022e-1028e
Author(s):  
Edgard S. Garcia ◽  
Daniela F. Veiga ◽  
Joel Veiga-Filho ◽  
Isaías V. Cabral ◽  
Natália L. L. Pinto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document