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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |