Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

Plating as a reduction aid prior to intramedullary nailing of tibia fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to analyse the literature on plate-assisted reduction during intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures and to compare the rates of infection and nonunion. METHODS: The databases Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 2022 for literature comparing plate-assisted reduction during intramedullary nailing of extra-articular tibia fractures to standard, closed means of reduction. Data were extracted and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis for the primary outcomes of nonunion and infection risk. RESULTS: Five comparative studies were identified including 520 total patients, of which 151 underwent tibial nailing with the use of plate-assisted reduction with an average follow-up time of 17.9 months. Approximately two-thirds of patients retained the plate used to assist reduction during intramedullary nailing (102 of 151). Pooled analysis of the infection rates found no significant difference with plate-assisted intramedullary nailing (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.49-1.65, p = 0.72), and for nonunion rates, there was also no significant difference with plate-assisted intramedullary nailing (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.40-1.60, p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Plate-assisted reduction during intramedullary nailing of tibia shaft fractures was not associated with an increased risk for nonunion or infection, and can be safely applied as an adjunct for reduction in challenging fracture patterns, without the need for later removal. However, evidence is quite limited and further investigation into the use of provisional plating as a technique is needed as its use in intramedullary nailing continues to expand.

Pronator quadratus preserving versus pronator quadratus dissecting approaches in volar plate fixation of distal radius fractures: a systematic review of comparative studies.

PURPOSE: To compare pronator quadratus preserving (PQ-P) approaches with PQ dissecting (PQ-D) approaches in volar plate fixation of distal radius fractures (DRFs). METHODS: Three databases were searched on March 10th, 2024. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Data on demographics, fracture classifications, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion, radiographic parameters, and complications were extracted. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 1007 fractures were included. Two of three studies reported lower DASH scores in the PQ-P group between 6 weeks and 3 months postoperative, however no studies reported lower scores in the PQ-P group after 3 months. Three of three studies reported significantly lower VAS scores at 6 weeks postoperative, however no studies reported significant differences after 6 months. Only one of six studies reported significantly greater flexion, extension, and pronation in the PQ-P group. One of four studies reported greater radial deviation in the PQ-P group, while there were no differences in supination or ulnar deviation. One of ten and one of six studies reported greater volar tilt and ulnar variance or radial length, respectively, in the PQ-P group. CONCLUSION: There is not sufficient evidence supporting the utility of PQ-P approaches over conventional PQ-D approaches for volar plate fixation of DRFs, especially at long-term follow-ups (3+ months). There may be short term benefits with PQ-P approaches, specifically with regards to PROMs in the short-term (< 6 weeks), however there is limited high-quality evidence supporting these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Open fractures: evidence-based best practices.

Open fracture management is a common challenge to orthopaedic trauma surgeons and a burdensome condition to the patient, health care, and entire society. Fracture-related infection (FRI) is the leading morbid complication to avoid during open fracture management because it leads to sepsis, nonunion, limb loss, and overall very poor region-specific and general functional outcomes. This review, based on a symposium presented at the 2022 OTA International Trauma Care Forum, provides a practical and evidence-based summary on key strategies to prevent FRI in open fractures, which can be grouped as optimizing host factors, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical site management (skin preparation, debridement, and wound irrigation), provision of skeletal stability, and soft-tissue coverage. When it is applicable, strategies are differentiated between optimal resource and resource-limited settings.

Perceptions in Orthopedic Surgery on the Use of Cannabis in Treating Pain: A Survey of Musculoskeletal Trauma Patients-Results From the Canadian POSIT Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patient-reported expectations regarding cannabis for pain following musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma and patients' perceptions and attitudes regarding its use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional retrospective survey-based study. SETTING: Three orthopaedic clinics in Ontario (Level-1 trauma center, Level-2 trauma center, rehabilitation clinic). PATIENTS SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients presenting to the clinics from January 24, 2018, to March 7, 2018, with traumatic MSK injuries (fractures/dislocations and muscle/tendon/ligament injury) were administered an anonymous questionnaire on cannabis for MSK pain. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Primary outcome measure was the patients' perceived effect of cannabis on MSK pain, reported on a continuous pain scale (0%-100%, 0 being no pain, and 100 unbearable pain). Secondary outcomes included preferences, such as administration route, distribution method, timing, and barriers (lack of knowledge, concerns for side effects/addiction, moral/religious opposition, etc.) regarding cannabis use. RESULTS: In total, 440 patients were included in this study, 217 (49.3%) of whom were female and 222 (50.5%) were male, with a mean age of 45.6 years (range 18-92 years, standard deviations 15.6). Patients estimated that cannabis could treat 56.5% (95% CI 54.0%-59.0%) of their pain and replace 46.2% (95% CI 42.8%-49.6%) of their current analgesics. Nearly one-third (131/430, 30.5%) reported that they had used medical cannabis and more than one-quarter (123/430, 28.6%) used it in the previous year. Most felt that cannabis may be beneficial to treat pain (304/334, 91.0%) and reduce opioid use (293/331, 88.5%). Not considering using cannabis for their injury (132/350, 37.7%) was the most common reason for not discussing cannabis with physicians. Higher reported pain severity (ß = 0.2/point, 95% CI 0.1-0.3, P = 0.005) and previous medical cannabis use were associated with higher perceived pain reduction (ß = 11.1, 95% CI 5.4-16.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One in 3 orthopaedic trauma patients used medical cannabis. Patients considered cannabis could potentially be an effective option for managing traumatic MSK pain and believed that cannabis could reduce opioid usage following acute musculoskeletal trauma. These data will help inform clinicians discussing medical cannabis usage with orthopaedic trauma patients moving forward.

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine).

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis. METHODS: This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use. RESULTS: 259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (ß = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (ß = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (ß = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.