Literature DB >> 28906305

Risk of Knee Sepsis After Treatment of Open Tibia Fractures: A Multicenter Comparison of Suprapatellar and Infrapatellar Approaches.

Geoffrey S Marecek1, Luke T Nicholson1, Frances H Broghammer2, Michael Talerico3, Caroline Tougas4, Derek J Donegan3, John A Scolaro5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The suprapatellar approach for medullary nailing of the tibia is increasing. This requires intra-articular passage of instruments, which theoretically places the knee at risk of postoperative sepsis in the setting of open fracture. We hypothesized that the risk of knee sepsis is similar after suprapatellar or infrapatellar nailing of open tibia fractures.
DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter.
SETTING: Three urban level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS: All patients treated with medullary nailing for open diaphyseal tibia fractures (OTA 42) from 2009 to 2015. Patients younger than 18 years of age and with less than 12 weeks of follow-up were excluded. We identified 289 fractures in 282 patients. INTERVENTION: Suprapatellar (SP) or infrapatellar (IP) medullary nailing of open tibia fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Occurrence of ipsilateral knee sepsis, defined as presence of a positive culture from knee aspiration or arthrotomy. Deep infection requiring operative debridement, superficial infection requiring antibiotic therapy alone, and all-cause reoperation were also recorded.
RESULTS: IP nailing was used for 142 fractures. There were 20 infections (14.1%), of which 14 (9.8%) were deep. Fourteen tibias (9.8%) required reoperation for noninfectious reasons for 28 total reoperations (19.7%). SP nailing was used in 147 fractures. There were 24 infections (16.2%), of which 16 (10.8%) were deep. Fourteen additional tibias (9.5%) required reoperation for noninfectious reasons for a total of 30 reoperations (20.4%). There were no differences in the rates of infection, deep infection, or reoperation between groups. There were 2 cases of knee sepsis after SP nailing (1.4%) but zero cases after IP nailing (P = 0.5).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the rate of knee sepsis with SP or IP approaches. The risk of knee sepsis after SP nailing of open fractures is low, but present. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28906305     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  5 in total

1.  Comparison between infrapatellar and suprapatellar approaches for intramedullary nailing for the fractures of the tibial shaft.

Authors:  Ke Lu; Yi-Jun Gao; Hong-Zhen Wang; Chong Li; Rong-Xun Qian; Qi-Rong Dong
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Knee Sepsis after Suprapatellar Nailing of an Open Tibia Fracture: Treatment with Acute Deformity and External Fixation.

Authors:  Chelsea E Minoughan; Adam P Schumaier; Frank R Avilucea
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2019-01-06

3.  Infrapatellar versus suprapatellar approach for intramedullary nailing of the tibia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nikhil Ponugoti; Branavan Rudran; Amr Selim; Sam Nahas; Henry Magill
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach for intramedullary nail fixation of tibial shaft fractures: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Jonathan D Ringenberg; Jonathan L Tobey; Jeffrey L Horinek; David C Teague
Journal:  OTA Int       Date:  2022-02-14

5.  Difference in Pain, Complication Rates, and Clinical Outcomes After Suprapatellar Versus Infrapatellar Nailing for Tibia Fractures? A Systematic Review of 1447 Patients.

Authors:  Nils Jan Bleeker; Inge H F Reininga; Bryan J M van de Wall; Laurent A M Hendrickx; Frank J P Beeres; Kaj Ten Duis; Job N Doornberg; Ruurd L Jaarsma; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Frank F A IJpma
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 2.512

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.