The PINS Trial: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing a traditional versus an emollient skincare regimen for the care of pin-sites in patients with circular frames.

AIMS: Pin-site infection remains a significant problem for patients treated by external fixation. A randomized trial was undertaken to compare the weekly use of alcoholic chlorhexidine (CHX) for pin-site care with an emollient skin preparation in patients with a tibial fracture treated with a circular frame. METHODS: Patients were randomized to use either 0.5% CHX or Dermol (DML) 500 emollient pin-site care. A skin biopsy was taken from the tibia during surgery to measure the dermal and epidermal thickness and capillary, macrophage, and T-cell counts per high-powered field. The pH and hydration of the skin were measured preoperatively, at follow-up, and if pin-site infection occurred. Pin-site infection was defined using a validated clinical system. RESULTS: Out of 116 patients who were enrolled in the study, 23 patients (40%) in the CHX group and 26 (44%) in the DML group had at least one bad or ugly pin-site infection. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.71). There was no significant relationship between pH or hydration of the skin and pin-site infection. The epidermal thickness was found to be significantly greater in patients who had a pin-site infection compared with those who did not (p = 0.01). Skin irritation requiring a change of treatment occurred in four patients (7%) using CHX, and none using DML. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the incidence of pin-site infection between the CHX and DML treatment groups. Dermol appeared to offer a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability. We did not find a significant association between patient or treatment related factors and pin-site infection. It is therefore difficult to make specific recommendations based upon these results. The use of either cleaning agent appears to be appropriate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):279-285.

Reducing the incidence of pin site infection in hand surgery with the use of a protocol from Ilizarov.

Reported pin site infection rates in Kirschner wire fixation in the hand and wrist vary from 2% to 35%. In our unit we follow a strict pin site management protocol adapted from the Russian Ilizarov Scientific Centre. This study aims to identify if our current protocol reduces the incidence of pin site infection in hand and wrist surgery, and improves wire survival rates, to a level where exposed wires can be used safely. A retrospective review of 200 patients, treated with 369 percutaneous wires, in our hand surgery department over a 6-year period was carried out. Nine patients (4.5%) were diagnosed with a pin site infection with a wire survival rate of 99.5%.In our unit using our current protocol, results support the safe use of exposed wires with appropriate pin site care initiated in theatre. Adherence to this protocol allows wires to remain in-situ throughout treatment with minimal complications.Level of evidence: IV.

Pin tract infection prophylaxis and treatment.

Pin tract infection in external fixation (ExFix) is a frequent finding which can eventually lead to loosening, osteomyelitis and loss of fixation. Its diagnosis is based on high empiricism and low validity, although it is possible to distinguish between minor and major infection. The first is limited to soft tissues, whereas the latter includes bone involvement. The rate of infection after conversion of external fixation to intramedullary nailing (IMN) is not well known. Unfortunately, papers referring to infection after the conversion of ExFix to intramedullary nailing (IMN) are of evidence level IV or V. It is suggested that conversion of ExFix to IMN should be carried out in a 2 step regimen. The time interval of 2 step regimen is uncertain although some authors have recommended to occur within 9 days. There is no consensus as to which prophylaxis protocol should be applied prior to conversion. In order to throw more light into this important issue, registries capturing important related parameters to the development of infection should be established.

No role for antiseptics in routine pin site care in Ilizarov fixators: A randomised prospective single blinded control study.

INTRODUCTION: Pin site infection is the commonest complication of Ilizarov external fixation. The aim of the study was to examine if use of antiseptics was superior over control and further if daily dressing was superior to weekly dressing in regular pin site care in reducing the burden of pin site infection in Ilizarov fixators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 114 patients (2363 pin sites) were randomised to receive regular pin site care alone (30 patients, 638 pin sites) or with additional application of povidone iodine (27 patients, 561 pin sites), silver sulfadiazine (27 patients, 570 pin sites) and chlorhexidine (30 patients, 594 pin sites). The pin tracts were sub-randomised to receive daily (1212 pin sites) or weekly (1151 pin sites) dressings. The primary outcome was pin site infection days rate across all four groups. The secondary outcomes were - mean duration to first episode of infection, differences between daily and weekly dressing groups, mean duration of antibiotic therapy and incidence of re-interventions and sequelae. We also recorded frequency of bacterial pathogens in all microbiological samples submitted. Block randomization using computer-generated random numbers was used. The assessor of outcome was blinded. RESULTS: All patients completed the study. Pin site infection rate days per 1000 pin site days observed was marginally less in chlorhexidine group, but was not statistically significant compared to other antiseptics and control group (Absolute value in control, povidone iodine, silver sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine groups were respectively 2.04 ± 4.27, 2.04 ± 3.65, 1.85 ± 3.37, 1.37 ± 2.35, p value 0.92). Daily dressing category showed slightly less pin site infection days rate within each group and overall, but this was also not statistically significant (1.56 ± 3.99 versus 2.10 ± 5.1, p value 0.35). There was no statistically significant difference among the groups with regard to other secondary outcomes. Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacterial pathogen isolated. CONCLUSION: Use of antiseptics does not offer any advantage in regular pin site care in Ilizarov external fixation and daily pin site care is not superior to weekly pin site care. Empirical therapy in early and low grade pin site infections must be targeted against Staphylococcus.

Pin-site care: can we reduce the incidence of infections?

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to determine the pin-site care protocols currently in use and to analyse their effectiveness and outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase databases were screened for manuscripts that described comparative studies of different methods of pin-site care and referred to complications related to any kind of external fixator application. RESULTS: A total of 369 manuscripts were screened and only 13 of these met the inclusion criteria evaluating different protocols of pin-site care. This review is based on a total of 574 patients. Infection rates were very variable depending on the type of implant used and the protocol of pin-site care applied. CONCLUSIONS: None of the different protocols of pin-site care that were evaluated in this study were associated with a 0% infection rate. There is currently no consensus in the international literature about which protocol should be applied universally. Meticulous surgical technique during pin insertion and implementation of one of the existing protocols of pin-site care are the mainstay of prevention and/or reduction of the incidence of pin-site infections.

Pin site care: guidance and key recommendations.

Pin site infection is the most common complication of external fixation, a complex orthopaedic procedure used to stabilise fractures and correct limb deformity. The care of pin sites has long been debated among healthcare professionals. It is widely acknowledged that there is a lack of high quality research in this area. In 2010 a meeting with the aim of achieving consensus about pin site care took place, funded by the Royal College of Nursing Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing. The aim was for practitioners who care for pin sites on a regular basis in adult, paediatric, hospital and community environments around the UK to explore and debate current practice. This article reports the findings of this meeting and discusses the difficulties in creating guidance on this area of practice.