Cargando…

Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. METHOD: This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Yanlong, Tian, Shuwei, Liu, Meiyu, Zhai, Wenfang, Zhou, Yujie, Peng, Aqin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197253/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37208629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x
_version_ 1785044511289769984
author Zhang, Yanlong
Tian, Shuwei
Liu, Meiyu
Zhai, Wenfang
Zhou, Yujie
Peng, Aqin
author_facet Zhang, Yanlong
Tian, Shuwei
Liu, Meiyu
Zhai, Wenfang
Zhou, Yujie
Peng, Aqin
author_sort Zhang, Yanlong
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. METHOD: This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. RESULTS: The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). CONCLUSION: BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10197253
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101972532023-05-20 Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis Zhang, Yanlong Tian, Shuwei Liu, Meiyu Zhai, Wenfang Zhou, Yujie Peng, Aqin BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. METHOD: This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. RESULTS: The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). CONCLUSION: BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. BioMed Central 2023-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10197253/ /pubmed/37208629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhang, Yanlong
Tian, Shuwei
Liu, Meiyu
Zhai, Wenfang
Zhou, Yujie
Peng, Aqin
Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title_full Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title_short Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title_sort comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197253/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37208629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangyanlong comparisonofantibioticimpregnatedbonecementcoverageversusvacuumsealingdrainageinsemiopenbonegraftingusingfortibialfracturewithinfectedboneandsofttissuedefectaretrospectiveanalysis
AT tianshuwei comparisonofantibioticimpregnatedbonecementcoverageversusvacuumsealingdrainageinsemiopenbonegraftingusingfortibialfracturewithinfectedboneandsofttissuedefectaretrospectiveanalysis
AT liumeiyu comparisonofantibioticimpregnatedbonecementcoverageversusvacuumsealingdrainageinsemiopenbonegraftingusingfortibialfracturewithinfectedboneandsofttissuedefectaretrospectiveanalysis
AT zhaiwenfang comparisonofantibioticimpregnatedbonecementcoverageversusvacuumsealingdrainageinsemiopenbonegraftingusingfortibialfracturewithinfectedboneandsofttissuedefectaretrospectiveanalysis
AT zhouyujie comparisonofantibioticimpregnatedbonecementcoverageversusvacuumsealingdrainageinsemiopenbonegraftingusingfortibialfracturewithinfectedboneandsofttissuedefectaretrospectiveanalysis
AT pengaqin comparisonofantibioticimpregnatedbonecementcoverageversusvacuumsealingdrainageinsemiopenbonegraftingusingfortibialfracturewithinfectedboneandsofttissuedefectaretrospectiveanalysis