Literature DB >> 31443939

Comparative study of the efficacy of gentamicin-coated intramedullary interlocking nail versus regular intramedullary interlocking nail in Gustilo type I and II open tibia fractures.

Deepak Pinto1, K Manjunatha1, Amarnath D Savur1, Naufal Rizwan Ahmed1, Sharan Mallya2, V Ramya3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Open tibia fracture is prone to infection, consequently causing significant morbidity and increasing the hospital stay, occupational loss and onset of chronic osteomyelitis. Intramedullary nailing is one choice for treating tibia shaft fractures. To improve the delivery of antibiotics at the tissue-implant interface, many methods have been proposed as a part of prophylaxis against infection. This study was conducted to study the role of gentamicin-impregnated intramedullary interlocking (IMIL) nail in the prevention of infection in Gustilo type I and II open tibia fractures and to compare the results with regular intramedullary nail.
METHODS: The study included 28 patients with open tibia fractures (Gustilo type 1 or type 2); of them 14 underwent regular IMIL nailing and the other 14 were treated with gentamicin-coated nailing. Randomization was done by alternate allocation of the patients. Follow-up was done postoperatively (day 1), 1 week, 6 weeks, and 6 months for bone union, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), hemoglobin and C-reactive protein (CRP). Statistical significance was tested using unpaired t-test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: There were 4 cases of infection in controls (regular IMIL nail) and no infection among patients treated with gentamicin-coated nail during the follow up (X2 = 4.66, p = 0.031). At 6 months postoperatively, CRP (p = 0.031), ESR (p = 0.046) and hemoglobin level (p = 0.016) showed significant difference between two groups. The bone healing rate was better with gentamicin-coated nail in comparison to regular IMIL nail at 6 months follow-up (p = 0.016).
CONCLUSION: Gentamicin-coated IMIL nail has a positive role in preventing infection in Gustilo type I and II open tibia fractures.
Copyright © 2019 Chinese Medical Association. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antibiotic impregnated nail; Infection; Intramedullary nailing; Open tibia fracture

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31443939      PMCID: PMC6823723          DOI: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2019.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chin J Traumatol        ISSN: 1008-1275


Introduction

Tibia and fibula shaft fractures are common long bone fractures in orthopedic practice and open tibia shaft contributes substantially to such a group. Open tibia fracture is prone to infection which causes a significant morbidity and increases the hospital stay, occupational loss and incidence of chronic osteomyelitis. Options for treating open tibia fractures are external fixators and intramedullary interlock (IMIL) nailing. Early stabilization of open tibia fractures using IMIL nailing has been proved advantageous for biomechanical stability, soft tissue reconstruction, fracture union and rehabilitation. But there was a potential risk of deep infection.4, 5, 6 Gaebler et al found that 13 cases (3.2%) developed infection among 467 patients after tibia IMIL nailing and 5 (1.1%) were deep wound infection. To improve prophylaxis against implant-related infection, various methods have been proposed for the local delivery of antibiotics at the tissue-implant interface. Antibiotic coated intramedullary nailing is one of the methods. The present study was conducted to observe the role of gentamicin-impregnated IMIL nail in prevention of infection and to compare the outcome with regular intramedullary nail in Gustilo type I and II open tibia fractures.

Methods

An observational study was conducted on 28 tibia fracture patients coming to the Department of Orthopaedics, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore and its allied hospitals, Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore, India over a period of two years from September 2015 to September 2017. Of them, 14 patients underwent regular IMIL nailing (controls) and the other 14 were treated with gentamicin-coated nailing (cases). Randomization was done by alternate allocation of the patients into the groups. Written and informed consent was taken from all patients. Open tibia shaft fractures i.e. Gustilo-Anderson type I & II, and patient age >18 years were the inclusion criteria. Gustilo type III, pregnant, breast-feeding or planning to become pregnant during the study period, known allergy to aminoglycosides and renal failure patients were excluded. Institutional Ethics Committee clearance was taken before conducting the study. Indications for the use of gentamicin-coated nails were: (1) open tibia fracture (Gustilo type I, II), (2) open or closed tibia fractures with >2 weeks external fixator prior to intramedullary nailing, and (3) revision of complex tibia fractures (implant-related infections and nonunion). Contraindications included (1) pregnancy and breast feeding, (2) skeletal immaturity, (3) hypersensitivity to aminoglycosides, and (4) implant-related infections without prior debridement. The antibiotic coated IMIL nail with gentamicin eluting property was procured from the company Matrix Meditec Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad, India. The implant was coated with a combination of gentamicin and biodegradable polymeric carrier Poly (D, L-Lactide). The total drug in average sized IMIL nail = 100 mg (1 mg/cm2). The surgical procedure was performed in accordance with standard practices and with the manufacturer's instruction for use of the nail. The surgeon continued standard antibiotic protocol to treat soft tissue injury, fracture pattern and associated injuries. Patient data were recorded at the time of admission. Data on infections and other adverse events were collected during the follow-up period. Infection was diagnosed clinically (fever, discharge from the surgical wound site), radiologically and using laboratory investigations. Laboratory parameters analyzed were C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), leukocyte count and hemoglobin. Follow-up was done immediate postoperative day 1, 1 week, 6 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. Radiographic assessment was done at follow-up visits. Conventional radiographs of the fractured limb in two planes (anteroposterior and lateral) with knee and ankle were done for all patients. The radiographs were taken preoperatively, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively. Consolidated fracture healing was defined as the bridging callus of at least three of four cortices without weight bearing in the anteroposterior and lateral view of the standard radiograph of the tibia. The radiographs were evaluated by two trained orthopedic assistants. Statistical significance was tested using unpaired t-test. SPSS Version 15.0 was used for data analysis. A p value less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Results

Comparison of the case group (antibiotic-coated intramedullary nail, n = 14) and control group (regular intramedullary nail, n = 14) revealed no significant difference regarding age, fracture type and delay in treatment (all p > 0.05, Table 1).
Table 1

Demographic statistics of two groups (n =14 for each group).

GroupAge (year)Gustilo-Anderson type
Delay in treatment (d)
III
Antibiotic-coated IMIL nail35.07773
Regular IMIL nail32.35773
p value0.3561.000.84
Demographic statistics of two groups (n =14 for each group). There were 4 cases of infection in controls and no infection in the gentamicin-coated cases, which revealed significant difference (X2 = 4.66, p = 0.031). All the four patients had low grade fever and discharge from the surgical wound site. Radiological examination showed signs of infection. At 6 months, 10 cases in the gentamicin-coated implant group healed completely and the other 4 patients showed bridging callus in three cortices on radiographs. The controls with regular IMIL nailing had disadvantaged results: the 4 infected cases had nonunion and only 5 cases achieved complete union at final follow up (Table 2) (Fig. 1). Comparison of the result revealed significant difference at 6 months follow-up (t=2.60, p = 0.016). A typical case of a 28 year old male with type II open tibia fracture treated with gentamicin-coated nailing is shown in Fig. 2.
Table 2

Fracture healing in cases and controls at follow up visits (n=14 for each group).

Follow-upsBone healing
Bone healing rate (Mean ± SD)t valuep value
0/41/42/43/44/4
6 weeks−0.660.516
 Gentamicin-coated IMIL nail4100000.71 ± 0.46
 Regular IMIL nail482000.85 ± 0.66
6 month2.600.016
 Gentamicin-coated IMIL nail0004103.71 ± 0.46
 Regular IMIL nail400552.5 ± 1.69
Fig. 1

Fracture healing at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. The numbers in the bars indicate the number of patients with 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 bridged cortices at each follow-up visit.

Fig. 2

A 28-year-old male with type II open tibia fractures was treated with gentamicin-coated nail. Preoperative lateral (A) and anteroposterior (B) X-ray and 6 months follow-up X-ray (C) showing fracture healing.

Fracture healing at 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. The numbers in the bars indicate the number of patients with 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 bridged cortices at each follow-up visit. A 28-year-old male with type II open tibia fractures was treated with gentamicin-coated nail. Preoperative lateral (A) and anteroposterior (B) X-ray and 6 months follow-up X-ray (C) showing fracture healing. The laboratory analysis for C- reactive protein, ESR and hemoglobin showed significant difference between two groups. Compared with conventional IMIL nailing, CRP (p = 0.031) and ESR (p = 0.046) reduced at final follow-up in patients with gentamicin-coated implant; while hemoglobin level improved greatly (p = 0.016) (Table 3).
Table 3

Laboratory results of C- reactive protein, ESR and hemoglobin of both groups at each time points (n = 14 for each group).

Laboratory parametersTime points
p value
PreoperativePostoperative7 days6 weeks6 months
C- reactive protein (mg/L)0.031
 Antibiotic-coated IMIL nail33.854.142.783
 Regular IMIL nail38.788.787.0717
ESR (mm/h)0.046
 Antibiotic-coated IMIL nail9.859.48.17.57.7
 Regular IMIL nail10.616.425.822.0221.21
Hemoglobin (g/L)0.016
 Antibiotic-coated IMIL nail119.3109.3112.9118.6123.4
 Regular IMIL nail119.9111.4111.1113.4121.4

Statistical significance was tested using student unpaired t test.

Fracture healing in cases and controls at follow up visits (n=14 for each group). Laboratory results of C- reactive protein, ESR and hemoglobin of both groups at each time points (n = 14 for each group). Statistical significance was tested using student unpaired t test.

Discussion

Infection in the open tibia fractures continues to be the unresolved problem in orthopedic practice. Recent development of the antibiotic coating of nails with carrier agent which dissolves after certain time without drastically altering the standard procedure has revived the interest in local drug deliver in internal fixation system. Unreamed tibia nail protect nails has been used effectively in more than hundred patients for various indications without infection. In this study, we investigate the role of gentamicin-coated nail in type I and II open tibia fractures and found gentamicin-coated nails have better results than regular IMIL nail. Fuchs et al demonstrated the usefulness of antibiotic-coated nail in both closed and open tibia fractures and suggested further randomized study. In our study, we clinically evaluated infection and chronic osteomyelitis among cases and controls which clearly showed significantly increased occurrence of infection in regular nailing patients (X2 = 4.66, p = 0.031). The lab parameters of chronic infection were also compared, which showed persistently elevated values in clinically infected patients (controls) in contrast to cases treated with antibiotic nails. Radiological union was defined as union of at least three cortices in this study. By the end of 6 months, all the patients in gentamicin-coated group showed union in contrast to delayed or nonunion in the control group (t = 2.6, p = 0.016). In our study all the tested parameters of C reactive protein, ESR and hemoglobin showed statistically significant difference between case and controls (all p < 0.05), which confirmed the definitive role of gentamicin-coated nail in prevention of infection in open tibia fractures compared with regular nails. Antibiotics-coated nailing has the advantage of not requiring on table preparation or unusual reaming for fitting into medullary cavity since coating will not affect the diameter of the nail (the increase was only by microns). Therefore the procedure of nailing can be conducted as standard without other changes. The release profile of gentamicin as described by manufacturer is maintained well above the minimum inhibitory concentration of commonly infecting organisms and the thermal properties of gentamicin make it suitable for coating and easy sterilization. Polylactic acid, as a drug carrier agent, has the advantage of self-dissolving without any effect on bone healing and further it has been tested as an osteointegration material. Polylactic acid will disappear after certain duration allowing the least chance of acting as a nidus of infection which may occur otherwise with polymethyl methacrylate cement. Further studies are recommended comparing different drug delivery system. The limitation of our study was the short follow-up time. In conclusion, gentamicin-coated IMIL nail has definitive role in preventing infection in Gustilo Type I and II open tibia fractures.

Funding

Nil.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the help and support from KMC Mangalore and Manipal Academy of Higher Education in performing this study.

Ethical statement

Institutional Ethics Committee clearance has been obtained before conduction of this study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
  13 in total

Review 1.  Pathophysiology of chronic bacterial osteomyelitis. Why do antibiotics fail so often?

Authors:  J Ciampolini; K G Harding
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 2.  The role of intramedullary nailing in treatment of open fractures.

Authors:  A Hofmann; S-O Dietz; P Pairon; P M Rommens
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 3.  The use of gentamicin-coated nails in complex open tibia fracture and revision cases: A retrospective analysis of a single centre case series and review of the literature.

Authors:  W J Metsemakers; M Reul; S Nijs
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 2.586

4.  Biodegradable poly(D,L-lactide) coating of implants for continuous release of growth factors.

Authors:  G Schmidmaier; B Wildemann; A Stemberger; N P Haas; M Raschke
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  2001

5.  Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses.

Authors:  R B Gustilo; J T Anderson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Rates and odds ratios for complications in closed and open tibial fractures treated with unreamed, small diameter tibial nails: a multicenter analysis of 467 cases.

Authors:  C Gaebler; U Berger; P Schandelmaier; M Greitbauer; H H Schauwecker; B Applegate; G Zych; V Vécsei
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 7.  Pathophysiology of posttraumatic osteomyelitis.

Authors:  D T Tsukayama
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Gentamicin coating of metallic implants reduces implant-related osteomyelitis in rats.

Authors:  M Lucke; G Schmidmaier; S Sadoni; B Wildemann; R Schiller; N P Haas; M Raschke
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  Infection after intramedullary nailing of severe open tibial fractures initially treated with external fixation.

Authors:  D J Maurer; R L Merkow; R B Gustilo
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  The epidemiology of tibial fractures.

Authors:  C M Court-Brown; J McBirnie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1995-05
View more
  5 in total

1.  Short term results with the use of PLA antibiotic coated nail in open tibia fractures: A prospective study.

Authors:  Anubhav Malhotra; Anant Krishna; Sudhir Kumar Garg; Sandeep Gupta; Rohit Jindal; Gunjar Jain
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-08-28

Review 2.  The evidence base for 2017 BOAST-4 guidance on open fracture management: Are we due an update?

Authors:  Yahya Ibrahim; Shazil Jamal; Kashif Akhtar
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-04-01

3.  Treatment of severely open tibial fractures, non-unions, and fracture-related infections with a gentamicin-coated tibial nail-clinical outcomes including quality of life analysis and psychological ICD-10-based symptom rating.

Authors:  Nike Walter; Daniel Popp; Viola Freigang; Michael Nerlich; Volker Alt; Markus Rupp
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Gentamicin-Coated Tibia Nail in Fractures and Nonunion to Reduce Fracture-Related Infections: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Daniele De Meo; Federico M Cannari; Luisa Petriello; Pietro Persiani; Ciro Villani
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 4.411

5.  Uncoated vs. Antibiotic-Coated Tibia Nail in Open Diaphyseal Tibial Fracture (42 according to AO Classification): A Single Center Experience.

Authors:  Tommaso Greco; Luigi Cianni; Chiara Polichetti; Michele Inverso; Giulio Maccauro; Carlo Perisano
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 3.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.