Cargando…

Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands about 18,000 procedures with implant removal are performed annually following open or closed reduction and fixation of fractures, of which 30-80% concern the foot, ankle and lower leg region. For clean surgical procedures, the rate of postoperative wound infections (PO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Backes, Manouk, Dingemans, Siem A, Schep, Niels WL, Bloemers, Frank W, Van Dijkman, Bart, Garssen, Frank P, Haverlag, Robert, Hoogendoorn, Jochem M, Joosse, Pieter, Mirck, Boj, Postma, Victor, Ritchie, Ewan, Roerdink, W Herbert, Sintenie, Jan Bernard, Soesman, Nicolaj MR, Sosef, Nico L, Twigt, Bas A, Van Veen, Ruben N, Van der Veen, Alexander H, Van Velde, Romuald, Vos, Dagmar I, De Vries, Mark R, Winkelhagen, Jasper, Goslings, J Carel, Schepers, Tim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-15-12
_version_ 1782371075282173952
author Backes, Manouk
Dingemans, Siem A
Schep, Niels WL
Bloemers, Frank W
Van Dijkman, Bart
Garssen, Frank P
Haverlag, Robert
Hoogendoorn, Jochem M
Joosse, Pieter
Mirck, Boj
Postma, Victor
Ritchie, Ewan
Roerdink, W Herbert
Sintenie, Jan Bernard
Soesman, Nicolaj MR
Sosef, Nico L
Twigt, Bas A
Van Veen, Ruben N
Van der Veen, Alexander H
Van Velde, Romuald
Vos, Dagmar I
De Vries, Mark R
Winkelhagen, Jasper
Goslings, J Carel
Schepers, Tim
author_facet Backes, Manouk
Dingemans, Siem A
Schep, Niels WL
Bloemers, Frank W
Van Dijkman, Bart
Garssen, Frank P
Haverlag, Robert
Hoogendoorn, Jochem M
Joosse, Pieter
Mirck, Boj
Postma, Victor
Ritchie, Ewan
Roerdink, W Herbert
Sintenie, Jan Bernard
Soesman, Nicolaj MR
Sosef, Nico L
Twigt, Bas A
Van Veen, Ruben N
Van der Veen, Alexander H
Van Velde, Romuald
Vos, Dagmar I
De Vries, Mark R
Winkelhagen, Jasper
Goslings, J Carel
Schepers, Tim
author_sort Backes, Manouk
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands about 18,000 procedures with implant removal are performed annually following open or closed reduction and fixation of fractures, of which 30-80% concern the foot, ankle and lower leg region. For clean surgical procedures, the rate of postoperative wound infections (POWI) should be less than ~2%. However, rates of 10-12% following implant removal have been reported, specifically after foot, ankle and lower leg fractures. Currently, surgeons individually decide if antibiotics prophylaxis is given, since no guideline exists. This leads to undesirable practice variation. The aim of the study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a single intravenous gift of Cefazolin prior to implant removal following surgical fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial in patients scheduled for implant removal following a foot, ankle or lower leg fracture. Primary outcome is a POWI within 30 days after implant removal. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, functional outcome and costs at 30 days and 6 months after implant removal. With 2 x 250 patients a decrease in POWI rate from 10% to 3.3% (expected rate in clean-contaminated elective orthopaedic trauma procedures) can be detected (Power = 80%, 2-sided alpha = 5%, including 15% lost to follow up). DISCUSSION: If administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to implant removal reduces the infectious complication rate, this will offer a strong argument to adopt this as standard practice of care. This will consequently lead to less physical and social disabilities and health care use. A preliminary, conservative estimation suggests yearly cost savings in the Netherlands of € 3.5 million per year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02225821) and the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4393) and was granted permission by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Academic Medical Centre on October 7 2014.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4429659
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44296592015-05-14 Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial Backes, Manouk Dingemans, Siem A Schep, Niels WL Bloemers, Frank W Van Dijkman, Bart Garssen, Frank P Haverlag, Robert Hoogendoorn, Jochem M Joosse, Pieter Mirck, Boj Postma, Victor Ritchie, Ewan Roerdink, W Herbert Sintenie, Jan Bernard Soesman, Nicolaj MR Sosef, Nico L Twigt, Bas A Van Veen, Ruben N Van der Veen, Alexander H Van Velde, Romuald Vos, Dagmar I De Vries, Mark R Winkelhagen, Jasper Goslings, J Carel Schepers, Tim BMC Surg Study Protocol BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands about 18,000 procedures with implant removal are performed annually following open or closed reduction and fixation of fractures, of which 30-80% concern the foot, ankle and lower leg region. For clean surgical procedures, the rate of postoperative wound infections (POWI) should be less than ~2%. However, rates of 10-12% following implant removal have been reported, specifically after foot, ankle and lower leg fractures. Currently, surgeons individually decide if antibiotics prophylaxis is given, since no guideline exists. This leads to undesirable practice variation. The aim of the study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a single intravenous gift of Cefazolin prior to implant removal following surgical fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial in patients scheduled for implant removal following a foot, ankle or lower leg fracture. Primary outcome is a POWI within 30 days after implant removal. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, functional outcome and costs at 30 days and 6 months after implant removal. With 2 x 250 patients a decrease in POWI rate from 10% to 3.3% (expected rate in clean-contaminated elective orthopaedic trauma procedures) can be detected (Power = 80%, 2-sided alpha = 5%, including 15% lost to follow up). DISCUSSION: If administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to implant removal reduces the infectious complication rate, this will offer a strong argument to adopt this as standard practice of care. This will consequently lead to less physical and social disabilities and health care use. A preliminary, conservative estimation suggests yearly cost savings in the Netherlands of € 3.5 million per year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02225821) and the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4393) and was granted permission by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Academic Medical Centre on October 7 2014. BioMed Central 2015-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4429659/ /pubmed/25972101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-15-12 Text en © Backes et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Backes, Manouk
Dingemans, Siem A
Schep, Niels WL
Bloemers, Frank W
Van Dijkman, Bart
Garssen, Frank P
Haverlag, Robert
Hoogendoorn, Jochem M
Joosse, Pieter
Mirck, Boj
Postma, Victor
Ritchie, Ewan
Roerdink, W Herbert
Sintenie, Jan Bernard
Soesman, Nicolaj MR
Sosef, Nico L
Twigt, Bas A
Van Veen, Ruben N
Van der Veen, Alexander H
Van Velde, Romuald
Vos, Dagmar I
De Vries, Mark R
Winkelhagen, Jasper
Goslings, J Carel
Schepers, Tim
Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
title Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
title_full Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
title_short Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
title_sort wound infections following implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the wifi-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-15-12
work_keys_str_mv AT backesmanouk woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dingemanssiema woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT schepnielswl woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bloemersfrankw woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vandijkmanbart woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT garssenfrankp woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT haverlagrobert woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hoogendoornjochemm woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT joossepieter woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mirckboj woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT postmavictor woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ritchieewan woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT roerdinkwherbert woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sinteniejanbernard woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT soesmannicolajmr woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sosefnicol woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT twigtbasa woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanveenrubenn woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanderveenalexanderh woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanvelderomuald woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vosdagmari woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT devriesmarkr woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT winkelhagenjasper woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT goslingsjcarel woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT scheperstim woundinfectionsfollowingimplantremovalbelowthekneetheeffectofantibioticprophylaxisthewifitrialamulticentrerandomizedcontrolledtrial