In Vitro Elution of Gentamicin from CERAMENT® G Has an Antimicrobial Effect on Bacteria With Various Levels of Gentamicin Resistance Found in Fracture-related Infection.

BACKGROUND: Fracture-related infection is a serious complication after trauma. CERAMENT® G combines dead-space management with local release of gentamicin in a single-stage procedure. Bacterial resistance against antibiotics is increasing. The local effect of CERAMENT® G on bacteria resistant to systemically administered gentamicin is unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the in vitro elution pattern of gentamicin from CERAMENT® G using a full washout model? (2) What is the in vitro antimicrobial activity (zone of inhibition) of CERAMENT® G against bacterial isolates found in fracture-related infection with different susceptibility levels toward gentamicin? METHODS: Elution of gentamicin from CERAMENT® G was determined in vitro over a period of 2 months. Elution experiments were performed in fivefold, with gentamicin being sampled in threefold at 19 different timepoints within 2 months. Antimicrobial activity was determined using the four most-frequently cultured bacterial species found in fracture-related infection: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae . For each of the species, four different isolates with a different susceptibility to gentamicin were used. According to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, the susceptibility of each isolate was classified into four different groups: fully susceptible (minimum inhibitory concentration 0.064 to 4 mg/L), minimally resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration 4 to 16 mg/L), moderately resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration 8 to 96 mg/L), and highly resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration 24 to 1024 mg/L), depending on each organism. The antimicrobial activity of CERAMENT® G was determined according to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing disk protocol. The experiment was performed in fivefold for each isolate. The zone of inhibition was compared between each bacterial isolate and within each of the four separate species. Nonlinear regression statistics were calculated between the zone of interest and logarithmic minimum inhibitory concentration for each bacterial species. RESULTS: After 24 hours, 95% of all available gentamicin was eluted, and gentamicin was still detectable after 2 months. CERAMENT® G showed antimicrobial activity against all bacterial species; only S taphylococcus aureus (with a minimum inhibitory concentration > 1024 mg/L) was not susceptible. The zone of interest of the different bacterial isolates was correlated with the logarithmic minimum inhibitory concentration. CONCLUSION: CERAMENT® G offers a bone substitute capable of releasing high levels of gentamicin within a short period of time. This study shows that CERAMENT® G has antimicrobial activity against bacterial isolates that are resistant to gentamicin when systemically administered. This finding raises the question of whether European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing cutoff points for systemic application are useful for the use of local CERAMENT® G. Standardized experiments to determine local antibiotic antimicrobial activity in fracture-related infection treatment are needed to form guidelines for the use of local antibiotics and ultimately improve fracture-related infection treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Local concentrations of gentamicin with CERAMENT® G are much higher than when systemically administered. It seems effective against certain bacterial strains that are not affected by systemically reachable concentrations of gentamicin. CERAMENT® G might still be effective when bacteria that are resistant to systemically administered concentrations of gentamicin are occulated from patients with fracture-related infection.

Fracture-related outcome study for operatively treated tibia shaft fractures (F.R.O.S.T.): registry rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Tibial shaft fractures (TSFs) are among the most common long bone injuries often resulting from high-energy trauma. To date, musculoskeletal complications such as fracture-related infection (FRI) and compromised fracture healing following fracture fixation of these injuries are still prevalent. The relatively high complication rates prove that, despite advances in modern fracture care, the management of TSFs remains a challenge even in the hands of experienced surgeons. Therefore, the Fracture-Related Outcome Study for operatively treated Tibia shaft fractures (F.R.O.S.T.) aims at creating a registry that enables data mining to gather detailed information to support future clinical decision-making regarding the management of TSF's. METHODS: This prospective, international, multicenter, observational registry for TSFs was recently developed. Recruitment started in 2019 and is planned to take 36 months, seeking to enroll a minimum of 1000 patients. The study protocol does not influence the clinical decision-making procedure, implant choice, or surgical/imaging techniques; these are being performed as per local hospital standard of care. Data collected in this registry include injury specifics, treatment details, clinical outcomes (e.g., FRI), patient-reported outcomes, and procedure- or implant-related adverse events. The minimum follow up is 12 months. DISCUSSION: Although over the past decades, multiple high-quality studies have addressed individual research questions related to the outcome of TSFs, knowledge gaps remain. The scarcity of data calls for an international high-quality, population-based registry. Creating such a database could optimize strategies intended to prevent severe musculoskeletal complications. The main purpose of the F.R.O.S.T registry is to evaluate the association between different treatment strategies and patient outcomes. It will address not only operative techniques and implant materials but also perioperative preventive measures. For the first time, data concerning systemic perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the influence of local antimicrobials, and timing of soft-tissue coverage will be collected at an international level and correlated with standardized outcome measures in a large prospective, multicenter, observational registry for global accessibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03598530 .

Risk factors for infectious complications after open fractures; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for the development of infection after open fracture fixation. METHODS: A comprehensive search in all scientific literature of the last 30 years was performed in order to identify patient-, trauma-, diagnosis- and treatment-related risk factors. Studies were included when infectious complications were assessed in light of one or more risk factors. A meta-analysis was performed. Risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 116 manuscripts were included. Male gender (RR 1.42), diabetes mellitus (DM) (RR 1.72), smoking (RR1.29), a lower extremity fracture (RR 1.94), Gustilo-Anderson grade III open fracture (RR 3.01), contaminated fracture (RR 7.85) and polytrauma patients (RR 1.49) were identified as statistically significant risk factors for the development of infectious complications. Of the treatment-related risk factors, only pulsatile lavage was associated with a higher infectious complication rate (RR 2.70). CONCLUSION: A number of risk factors for the development of infections after open fractures have been identified in the available literature. These factors should still be tested for independence in a multivariable model. Prospective, observational studies are needed to identify and quantify individual risk factors for infection after open fracture fixation.

Living Kidney Donor Knowledge of Provided Information and Informed Consent: The PRINCE Study.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. METHODS: In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B). RESULTS: In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0-18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0-17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis should be performed by a laparoscopic surgeon.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of surgical subspecialization on the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June 2002 and June 2009 in a major teaching hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: those operated on by laparoscopy-oriented surgeons (more than 50 laparoscopic procedures annually) and those operated on by nonlaparoscopy surgeons. Surgeries were divided into two groups as well: elective surgery for cholelithiasis and emergency surgery for acute cholecystitis. Conversion rate, operating time, complications, and length of hospital stay were analyzed and compared between both groups. RESULTS: During the study period 1509 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease. A laparoscopic surgeon performed the procedure on 893 patients, and 616 patients were operated on by nonlaparoscopy surgeons. For elective surgeries the laparoscopic interest of the surgeon had no influence on the outcome of the procedure. In patients with acute cholecystitis, a significant difference in conversion rate (3.6 vs. 15.6%, p = 0.003) and operating time (68 vs. 76 min, p = 0.02) favored the laparoscopic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who present with acute cholecystitis have a greater chance of a laparoscopically completed cholecystectomy if operated on by a laparoscopy-oriented surgeon.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year. RESULTS: The trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR2666.

Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and accepted procedure. Donors have to be well educated about all risks and details during the informed consent process. For this to be successful, more information regarding short-term outcome is necessary. METHODS: A literature search was performed; all studies discussing short-term complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs. RESULTS: One hundred ninety articles were included in the systematic review, 41 in the meta-analysis. Conversion rate was 1.1%. Intraoperative complication rate was 2.3%, mainly bleeding (1.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 7.3% of donors, including infectious complications (2.6%), of which mainly wound infection (1.6%) and bleeding (1.0%). Reported mortality rate was 0.01%. All minimally invasive techniques were comparable with regard to complication or conversion rate. CONCLUSIONS: The used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low complication rates and minimal risk of mortality. These data may be helpful to develop a standardized, donor-tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

Towards a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: What do surgeons tell their donors?

INTRODUCTION: Living kidney donors comprise a unique group of "patients", undergoing an operation for the benefit of others. The informed consent process is therefore valued differently. Although this is a team effort, the surgeon is responsible for performing the donor nephrectomy, and often the one held accountable, should adverse events occur. Although there is some consensus on how the informed consent procedure should be arranged, practices vary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy, with special regards to disclosure of complications. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to all kidney transplant surgeons (n = 50) in eight transplant centers with questions regarding the local procedure and disclosure of specific details. RESULTS: Response rate was 98% (n = 49), of which 32 (65%) were involved in living donor education; overall, transplant- (50%), vascular- (31%), and abdominal surgeons (13%), and urologists (6%) performed donor nephrectomies in the eight centers. Informed consent procedures varied, ranging from assumed to signed consent. Bleeding was the only complication every surgeon mentioned. Risk of death was always mentioned by 16 surgeons (50%), sometimes by 13 (41%), three surgeons (9%) never disclosed this disastrous complication. Reported mortality rates ranged from 0.003% to 0.1%. Mentioning frequencies for all other complications varied. CONCLUSION: Important complications are not always disclosed during the surgical informed consent process for live donor nephrectomy. Informed consent procedures vary. To optimally prepare living kidney donors for the procedure, a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy is highly recommended.

Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought. RESULTS: Outcome will be published in a scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5374; Pre-results.

The need for a standardized informed consent procedure in live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent in live donor nephrectomy is a topic of great interest. Safety and transparency are key items increasingly getting more attention from media and healthcare inspection. Because live donors are not patients, but healthy individuals undergoing elective interventions, they justly insist on optimal conditions and guaranteed safety. Although transplant professionals agree that consent should be voluntary, free of coercion, and fully informed, there is no consensus on which information should be provided, and how the donors' comprehension should be ascertained. METHODS: Comprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, PubMed, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, issue 1) and Google Scholar, evaluating the informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Interventional Systematic Reviews and written based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1,009 hits from which 21 articles fell within the scope of this study. Procedures vary greatly between centers, and transplant professionals vary in the information they disclose. Although research has demonstrated that donors often make their decision based on moral reasoning rather than balancing risks and benefits, providing them with accurate, uniform information remains crucial because donors report feeling misinformed about or unprepared for donation. Although a standardized procedure may not provide the ultimate solution, it is vital to minimize differences in live donor education between transplant centers. CONCLUSION: There is a definite need for a guideline on how to provide information and obtain informed consent from live kidney donors to assist the transplant community in optimally preparing potential donors.

Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs. DISCUSSION: The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2666.