RESUMEN
Fracture-related infections (FRIs), as shown in the literature, represent one of the main complications of trauma surgery. They are a consequence of an implant-related "biofilm" formation and are a challenge for surgeons, microbiologists, and infectious disease specialists. For a correct diagnosis, careful clinical evaluation, to look for signs/symptoms attributable to an infectious condition, and instrumental examinations, to highlight the site of infection, its extent, and its severity, are both essential. Unfortunately, due to the lack of data in the literature, there is no consensus about guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of FRIs. The purpose of this study is to present an up-to-date concept evaluation of the diagnostic procedures and treatment options available in the management of fracture-related infections.
RESUMEN
Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease caused by the wear and tear of joint cartilage. The definitive and resolving treatment is prosthetic replacement of the articular surface, the demand of which is on the rise for patients with mild to moderate severity. However, a conservative strategy may be considered that aims to reduce and contain pain symptoms by postponing surgical treatment in the case of worsening that can no longer be otherwise controlled. Intra-articular infiltrations, like other therapeutic strategies, are not without complications, and among these the most feared is joint infection, especially in anticipation of future prosthetic replacement. Is important to avoid periprosthetic joint infections because they represent one of the third most common reasons for revision surgery. Using cases found in the literature, the aim of this article is to determine if there is a real correlation between the type of injections, the number of doses injected and the time between infiltrations and the surgical procedure.
RESUMEN
(1) Background: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are severe and frightening complications in orthopaedic surgery, and they are generally divided into three categories: early infections (those occurring within the first 4-6 weeks), delayed infections (those occurring between 3 and 24 months), and late infections (those occurring more than 2 years after surgery). PJI treatment comprises "debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention" (DAIR), single-stage revision, and double-stage revision. Nowadays, to improve the chances of retaining an infected implant and to improve the traditional DAIR method, a modified surgical technique has been developed, named DAPRI (debridement, antibiotic pearls, and retention of the implant). Our study aims to present an up-to-date concept evaluation of the DAPRI technique and its success rate. (2) Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards were followed, applying a protocol defined by the authors: a total of 765 articles were identified, and at the end of the screening process only 7 studies were included. (3) Results: Currently, the DAPRI procedure can be performed only on patients who have had PJI symptoms for less than 4 weeks, and in order to achieve the highest success rate, indications are quite strict: it is appropriate in patients with acute, superficial infections without sinus tract presence, and well-fixed implants with known sensitive bacteria. The DAPRI surgical method follows a step-by-step process consisting of a first phase of biofilm identification with intra-articular injection of methylene blue, followed by biofilm removal (thermic, mechanical, and chemical aggression), and a last step consisting of prevention of PJI recurrence by using calcium sulphate antibiotic-added beads. (4) Conclusions: The DAPRI approach improves the traditional DAIR technique. It is a correct treatment for acute and early haematogenous PJI, and improves the DAIR success rate.
RESUMEN
Aim Significant risk factors for femoral nail cutout are well-documented, primarily in the context of single-screw proximal nails. However, it remains uncertain whether those same risk factors are applicable when considering different implant devices. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare cutout risk factors between single- versus double-screw proximal femoral nails. Methods Patients over the age of 75 with intertrochanteric femur fractures (AO Classification 31-A1 or 31-A2) were included in the multicentre study. A study group was treated with a double-screw nail, while a control group received single-screw device. Demographic data, surgical time (min), fracture pattern, distal locking, reduction quality, comorbidities, tip-apex distance (TAD) and 12-month functional scores was collected. Results Two hundred patients were enrolled, 100 for each group. Nine patients experienced a cutout complication, five in the study and four in the control group. The main differences were in distal locking configurations (p<0.05) and in TAD values (p<0.05). The TAD value was higher in the study than in the control group (30.40±0.89 versus 26.79±1.79). No differences at 12-month follow up were reported according to functional scores. Conclusion This study provides insights into the choice of nail systems for intertrochanteric femur fractures, highlighting the importance of distal locking configurations and TAD values. The double screw nail exhibits quite a tolerance by having a higher average TAD value. These findings may guide clinical decisionmaking in the treatment of this challenging fracture type.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Femoral shaft fractures with third fragments have a high non-union rate, which may reach 14%. This study aims to assess the impact of the radiological features of the third fragment, evaluated on post-operative X-rays, on the outcome of femoral shaft fractures type 32-B managed with intramedullary nailing, in order to obtain an algorithm which could predict the fracture healing time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have retrospectively evaluated a series of 52 patients. On post-operative X-rays, four radiological parameters were evaluated: the third fragment angle, the fracture gap, the third fragment size, and the mean third fragment displacement. All the patients underwent a radiologic follow-up at one, two, three, six, nine and 12 months post-operatively, to assess the bone healing. The patients were then divided into three groups, according to the fracture healing time: within six months (group A), between six and 12 months (group B), or fracture non-union after 12 months (group C). RESULTS: In 28 patients, out of 52 (53.85%), the fracture healing was observed at 6-month follow-up; in 18 patients, out of 52 (34.62%), the fracture healed within 12 months after trauma; and in six patients, out of 52 (11.54%), no fracture healing was observed at 12-month follow-up. The mean third fragment size was significantly different in each group (p < 0.05), while the mean third fragment displacement was significantly higher in group C, compared with group A (p = 0.0006) and group B (p = 0.0027). In group B, a positive correlation was found between the fracture healing time and the mean third fragment size (R = 0.594, p = 0.036); in group C, the fracture union time was positively related to the third fragment size (R = 0.689, p = 0.013) and the mean third fragment displacement (R = 0.7107, p = 0.006). Regression analysis showed that the third fragment size and the mean third fragment displacement are the most important features which affect the fracture healing time. CONCLUSIONS: The third fragment size (cutoff 40 mm) is the leading parameter to influence the fracture healing within or in more than six months. The mean third fragment displacement (cutoff 12 mm); on the other hand, impacts on the fracture delayed rather than absent healing.
