| Literature DB >> 28134091 |
Olukemi Temiloluwa Olufemi1, Adeolu Ikechukwu Adeyeye1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Open fractures are widely considered as orthopaedic emergencies requiring immediate intervention. The initial management of these injuries usually affects the ultimate outcome because open fractures may be associated with significant morbidity. Wound irrigation forms one of the pivotal principles in the treatment of open fractures. The choice of irrigation fluid has since been a source of debate. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of isotonic saline and distilled water as irrigation solutions in the management of open fractures of the lower extremities. Wound infection and wound healing rates using both solutions were evaluated.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28134091 PMCID: PMC5278649 DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2016031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SICOT J ISSN: 2426-8887
Irrigation fluid volume used for each Gustilo grade.
| Gustilo type | Irrigation |
|---|---|
| I | 3 L of Isotonic saline/distilled water |
| II | 6 L of Isotonic saline/distilled water |
| IIIa | 9 L of Isotonic saline/distilled water |
Demographic characteristics of the study population.
| Variables | NS | DW |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± | Mean ± | ||||
| Age in years | 37.1 ± 13.6 | 34.6 ± 11.9 | 0.979 | 95 | 0.330 |
| Male | 30.7 ± 11.0 | 32.7 ± 9.2 | −0.788 | 59 | 0.434 |
| Female | 44.2 ± 12.9 | 40.2 ± 16.8 | 0.793 | 34 | 0.433 |
| Age group (yrs) |
|
| |||
| <20 | 2 (4.0) | 4 (8.5) | 7.073 | 4 | 0.132* |
| 20–29 | 14 (28.0) | 10 (21.3) | |||
| 30–39 | 16 (32.0) | 25 (53.2) | |||
| 40–49 | 7 (14.0) | 3 (6.4) | |||
| 50+ | 11 (22.0) | 5 (10.6) | |||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 26 (52.0) | 35 (74.5) | 5.240 | 1 | 0.022* |
| Female | 24 (48.0) | 12 (25.5) | |||
| Affected bones | |||||
| Femur | 20 (40) | 10 (21.3) | |||
| Tibia | 18 (36) | 26 (55.3) | 0.145 | ||
| Ankle | 12 (24) | 11 (23.4) |
NS – Isotonic saline group, DW – Distilled water group; t – Independent samples t-test, df – degrees of freedom, *Chi-square test applied.
Figure 1.Mechanism of injury (p > 0.05).
Figure 2.Type of motor vehicular accident.
Assessment of wound among study subjects.
| Variables | NS | DW | χ2 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| Wound closure | |||||
| Primary closure | 31 (62.0) | 33 (70.2) | 1.411 | 2 | 0.494 |
| Delayed primary closure | 14 (28.0) | 12 (25.5) | |||
| Split thickness skin graft | 5 (10.0) | 2 (4.3) | |||
| Wound infection | |||||
| Absent | 28 (56.0) | 31 (66.0) | |||
| Present | 22 (44.0) | 16 (34.0) | 1.008 | 1 | 0.315 |
| RR 0.774, 95% CI 0.466–1.283 | |||||
| Wound healing | |||||
| Two weeks | 29 (58.0) | 30 (63.8) | 0.960 | 2 | 0.619 |
| Four weeks | 15 (30.0) | 14 (29.8) | |||
| Eight weeks | 6 (12.0) | 3 (6.4) | |||
| Time to wound healing (weeks) | |||||
| Mean ± | 3.1 ± 1.8 | 2.7 ± 1.5 | −0.862 | 0.389 | |
| Median (range) | 2.0 (2.0–8.0) | 2.0 (2.0–8.0) |
Mann-Whitney U test applied.
Multivariate logistic regression for predictors of wound infection.
| Variables | RR (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Age group (yrs) | ||
| <20 | 0.259 (0.009–7.560) | 0.432 |
| 20–29 | 0.752 (0.126–4.501) | 0.755 |
| 30–39 | 0.512 (0.095–2.767) | 0.437 |
| 40–49 | 0.585 (0.064–5.326) | 0.634 |
| 50+ | 1 | |
| Irrigation fluid | ||
| Distilled water | 0.9 (0.279–2.906) | 0.860 |
| Isotonic saline | 1 | |
| Gustilo grade | ||
| Grade I | 0.000 | 0.999 |
| Grade II | 0.078 (0.023–0.262) | 0.000 |
| Grade IIIa | 1 | |
| Time interval between injury and presentation (hrs) | ||
| <1 | 0.000 | 0.999 |
| 2–6 | 0.275 (0.073–1.039) | 0.057 |
| 7–12 | 0.456 (0.107–1.948) | 0.289 |
| 13–24 | 1 | |
| Time interval between presentation and initial debridement (hrs) | ||
| 3–5 | 0.000 | 0.999 |
| 6–12 | 4.302 (0.244–75.878) | 0.319 |
| 13–24 | 2.518 (0.161–39.306) | 0.510 |
| >24 | 1 |