Type of antibiotic but not the duration of prophylaxis correlates with rates of fracture-related infection.

PURPOSE: The issue of optimal prophylactic antibiotic administration for closed and open fracture surgeries remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess the role of type and duration longer than 48 h of antibiotic prophylaxis on the rates of fracture-related infection (FRI). METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective observational cohort study carried out with patients undergoing surgery for implants insertion to fracture stability. Risk estimates were calculated on the variables associated with factors for FRI and reported as a prevalence ratio (PR) with respect to the 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 132 patients were analyzed. The global rate of FRI was 15.9% (21/132), with open and closed fractures accounting for 30.5% (11/36) and 10.4% (10/96), respectively. The FRI rates in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery for fracture stabilization who received prophylactic antibiotic for up to and longer than 48 h were 8.9% and 26.4%, respectively. This difference did not reach statistical significance (prevalence ratio [PR] = 2.6, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.9-7.3. p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: Duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical orthopedic fractures was not correlated with rates of FRI.

Prior use of antibiotics and immunosuppression are risk factors for fracture-related infection during the COVID-19 pandemic period: a Brazilian prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the role of COVID-19 pandemic period on the epidemiology of fracture-related infection (FRI). The present study summarizes the changes in the prevalence, microbiology, and risk factors of FRI during this period. METHODS: A prospective single-center cohort study assessed in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), clinical, microbiological aspects, and independent risk factors (RF) of FRI. RFs were estimated by bivariate and multivariable analyses using prevalence ratio (PR) with significance at P < 0.05. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 132 patients were analyzed, with patients with age over 65 years accounting 65.1%. FRI was diagnosed in 21(15.9%) patients. Independent RFs for FRI were recent and preoperative use of systemic antibiotics (PR: 7.0, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 2.2 - 22.4, p = 0.001) and cancer (PR: 9.8, 95% CI: 2.0 - 48.8, p = 0.005). Cultures yielded Gram-negative bacteria in 77.8%, 33.3% were MDR. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher rates of FRI, predominating in the elderly with closed femoral fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior use of antibiotics and immunosuppression conditions were independent factor for FRI. Our outcomes provide evidence to avoid the empirical use of antibiotics prior to surgery for fracture stabilization.

Rapidly fatal tropical pyomyositis in an elderly diabetic woman.

Necrotizing soft tissue infection, with or without myositis, is classified among the most dangerous infectious emergencies in clinical practice. The authors report a case of an older diabetic woman who presented to the orthopedic service with right elbow pain after a small trauma with skin abrasion and released with an analgesic prescription. After 48h, she presented to the emergency room with a history of developing bullous and necrotic lesions in the upper right limb, hypotension, and numbness, with rapid and fatal evolution despite adequate clinical and surgical therapeutic support. Muscle biopsy showed necrotizing myositis. Blood culture was positive for Panton-Valentine leukocidin producing (PVL-positive) methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Although PVL has a strong epidemiologic association with Community-Acquired Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections, it can also be found in CA-MSSA in the context of necrotizing pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infections. Although infrequent, CA-MRSA or CA-MSSA PVL+ infections should always be suspected in high-risk patients because they can rapidly evolve with severe, sometimes fatal complications.

Durability of Three Different Types of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in Skin: Are There Differences Among Biphasic, Monophasic Monodensified, and Monophasic Polydensified Products?

Background: Hyaluronic acid fillers are used for facial rejuvenation and are classified as non-cross-linked or cross-linked (monophasic mono- or polydensified). Objectives: To histologically assess the intradermal durability of three types of fillers (biphasic, monophasic monodensified, and monophasic polydensified), to compare the durability of the products over 6 months, and to evaluate the structural changes after application. Methods: In all, 25 volunteers received injections of three different fillers in the dermis of the right lumbar region (in one line), and equal amounts of the fillers were injected into three different sites (in the same column), yielding nine points of application in each patient. Each line was biopsied on days 2, 92, and 184; these skin samples were analyzed histologically, and the presence or absence of these fillers was verified by a dermatopathologist. Results: The histological analysis showed that over 182 days, the amount of the injected monophasic polydensified, monophasic monodensified, and biphasic filler products decreased by 62.5%, 25%, and 12.5%, respectively. Conclusions: The biphasic and monophasic monodensified fillers presented greater intradermal durability than did the monophasic polydensified filler at 6 months after intradermal injection.