Does Local Aqueous Tobramycin Injection Reduce Open Fracture-Related Infection Rates?

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of local aqueous tobramycin injection adjunct to perioperative intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing fracture-related infections (FRIs) following reduction and internal fixation of open fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic Level I trauma center. PATIENTS SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients with open extremity fractures treated with reduction and internal fixation with (intervention group) or without (control group) 80 mg of local aqueous (2 mg/mL) tobramycin injected during closure at the time of definitive fixation were identified from December 2018 to August 2021 based on population-matched demographic and injury characteristics. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The primary outcome was FRI within 6 months of definitive fixation. Secondary outcomes consisted of fracture nonunion and bacterial speciation. Differences in outcomes between the 2 groups were assessed and logistic regression models were created to assess the difference in infection rates between groups, with and without controlling for potential confounding variables, such as sex, fracture location, and Gustilo-Anderson classification. RESULTS: An analysis of 157 patients was performed with 78 patients in the intervention group and 79 patients in the control group. In the intervention group, 30 (38.5%) patients were women with a mean age of 47.1 years. In the control group, 42 (53.2%) patients were women with a mean age of 46.4 years. The FRI rate was 11.5% in the intervention group compared with 25.3% in the control group ( P = 0.026). After controlling for sex, Gustilo-Anderson classification, and fracture location, the difference in FRI rates between groups remained significantly different ( P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Local aqueous tobramycin injection at the time of definitive internal fixation of open extremity fractures was associated with a significant reduction in FRI rates when administered as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotics, even after controlling for potential confounding variables. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Irrigation-Coupled Bipolar Electrocautery Versus Tourniquet in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: Recovery from total knee arthroplasty remains arduous for some patients, prompting interest in perioperative management. While tourniquet use is not associated with longer-term outcomes, its effect on quadriceps strength in the immediate postoperative window is unknown. Methods: A single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 66 patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty from 2019 to 2022 was performed to compare the use of an irrigation-coupled bipolar device (ICBD) and no tourniquet (ICBD group, N = 34) to tourniquet use with no ICBD (tourniquet group, N = 32). Groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and obesity. The primary outcome was quadriceps strength at 2 weeks, measured using a handheld dynamometer and standardized to the contralateral side. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement was measured with the difference from baseline serving as a secondary outcome. Comparisons were performed using the Student's t-test. Results: Only 28 patients, 14 in each group, had primary outcome data. At 2-weeks, quadriceps strength was higher in the ICBD group compared to the tourniquet group (83% vs 70%), though not statistically significant (P = .16). There was no difference between the ICBD and tourniquet groups in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement changed at 2-weeks (13 vs 10, P = .37) or 6-weeks (16 vs 17, P = .76). Conclusions: Tourniquet use was associated with a small but not statistically significant difference in quadriceps strength at 2 weeks that may justify further study given the loss of power here. There can be limitations to conducting randomized controlled trials that are important for early-career investigators to consider and that were magnified due to COVID-related restrictions in the present study, which we discuss. Level of Evidence: Level II.

Systematic Review of Gender and Sex Terminology Use in Arthroplasty Research: There Is Room for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing appreciation of the distinction between gender and sex as well as the importance of accurately reporting these constructs. Given recent attention regarding transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) and intersex identities, it is more necessary than ever to understand how to describe these identities in research. This study sought to investigate the use of gender- and sex-based terminology in arthroplasty research. METHODS: The 5 leading orthopaedic journals publishing arthroplasty research were reviewed to identify the first twenty primary clinical research articles on an arthroplasty topic published after January 1, 2022. Use of gender- or sex-based terminology, whether use was discriminate, and whether stratification or adjustment based on gender or sex was performed, were recorded. RESULTS: There were 98 of 100 articles that measured a construct of gender or sex. Of these, 15 articles used gender-based terminology, 45 used sex-based terminology, and 38 used a combination of gender- and sex-based terminology. Of the 38 articles using a combination of terminology, none did so discriminately. All articles presented gender and sex as binary variables, and 2 attempted to explicitly define how gender or sex were defined. Of the 98 articles, 31 used these variables for statistical adjustments, though only 6 reported stratified results. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroplasty articles infrequently describe how gender or sex was measured, and frequently use this terminology interchangeably. Additionally, these articles rarely offer more than 2 options for capturing variation in sex and gender. Future research should be more precise in the treatment of these variables to improve the quality of results and ensure findings are patient-centered and inclusive.

Does Scheduled Low-Dose Short-Term NSAID (Ketorolac) Modulate Cytokine Levels After Orthopaedic Polytrauma? A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether scheduled low-dose, short-term ketorolac modulates cytokine concentrations in orthopaedic polytrauma patients. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single Level I trauma center from August 2018 to October 2022. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Orthopaedic polytrauma patients between 18 and 75 years with a New Injury Severity Score greater than 9 were enrolled. Participants were randomized to receive 15 mg of intravenous ketorolac every 6 hours for up to 5 inpatient days or 2 mL of intravenous saline similarly. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Daily concentrations of prostaglandin E2 and interleukin (IL)-1a, IL-1b, IL-6, and IL-10. Clinical outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, pulmonary complications, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: Seventy orthopaedic polytrauma patients were enrolled, with 35 participants randomized to the ketorolac group and 35 to the placebo group. The overall IL-10 trend over time was significantly different in the ketorolac group ( P = 0.043). IL-6 was 65.8% higher at enrollment compared to day 3 ( P < 0.001) when aggregated over both groups. There was no significant treatment effect for prostaglandin E2, IL-1a, or IL-1b ( P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Scheduled low-dose, short-term, intravenous ketorolac was associated with significantly different mean trends in IL-10 concentration in orthopaedic polytrauma patients with no significant differences in prostaglandin E2, IL-1a, IL-1b, or IL-6 levels between groups. The treatment did not have an impact on clinical outcomes of hospital or intensive care unit length of stay, pulmonary complications, or acute kidney injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.