4.3 Article

A Single-Stage Treatment Protocol for Presumptive Aseptic Diaphyseal Nonunions: A Review of Outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 582-586

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31828b76f2

关键词

aseptic nonunion; diaphyseal nonunion; infected nonunion; exchange nailing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:To review the results of a single-stage treatment protocol for presumptive aseptic diaphyseal nonunion with a well-healed wound and no infection history.Design:Retrospective comparative study.Setting:Tertiary referral center.Patients and Methods:We retrospectively reviewed all presumptive aseptic diaphyseal nonunions treated by a single-stage protocol. There were 104 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-seven patients were available for follow-up through to complete healing (83.7% follow-up rate).Intervention:The protocol entails withholding preoperative antibiotics, removing the implant, performing open debridement or canal reaming, taking 5 cultures of the nonunion site or canal reamings, followed by antibiotic administration, and revision open reduction and internal fixation or exchange nailing. If intraoperative cultures are positive, long-term antibiotics are begun specific to organism sensitivities.Main Outcome Measurements:To analyze the rate of positive cultures and to compare the rate of secondary surgery to promote healing in positive and negative culture groups.Results:Intraoperative cultures were positive in 28.7% (25/87) of patients with complete follow-up. The overall rate of secondary surgery for persistence of nonunion was 12.6% (11/87). In patients with positive intraoperative cultures, rate of secondary surgery was 28% (7/25) versus 6.4% (4/62) in the group without positive intraoperative cultures (P = 0.01).Conclusion:A single-stage treatment protocol for presumptive aseptic diaphyseal nonunions was effective in obviating further revision surgery in 93.6% of truly aseptic cases and in 72% of positive culture cases and is still employed at our institution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据