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.).

Dual Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Dual implants for distal femur periprosthetic fractures is a growing area of interest for these challenging fractures with dual plating (DP) emerging as a viable construct for these injuries. In the current study, an experience with DP constructs is described. DESIGN: Retrospective case series with comparison group. SETTING: Level 1 academic trauma center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adults >50 years old sustaining comminuted OTA/AO 33-A2 or 33-A3 DFPF treated with either DP or a single distal femur locking plating (DFLP). Patients with simple 33-A1 fractures were excluded. Prior to 2018, patients underwent DFLP after which the treatment of choice became DP. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Reoperation rate, alignment, and complications. RESULTS: 34 patients treated with DFLP and 38 with DP met inclusion and follow up criteria. Average follow up was 18.2 ± 13.8 months in the DFLP group and 19.8 ± 16.1 months in the DP group ( P = 0.339). The average patient age in the DFLP group was 74.8 ± 7.3 years compared to 75.9 ± 11.3 years in the DP group. There were no statistical differences in demographics, fracture morphology, loss of reduction, or reoperation for any cause ( P >.05). DP patients were more likely to be weight bearing in the twelve-week postoperative period ( P <0.001) and return to their baseline ambulatory status ( P = 0.004) compared to DFLP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dual plating of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures maintained coronal alignment with a low reoperation rate even with immediate weight bearing and these patients regained baseline level of ambulation more reliably as compared to patients treated with a single distal femoral locking plate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparison of Lateral versus Medial Entry Femoral Traction Pin Complication Rates.

Distal femoral skeletal traction is a common procedure for the stabilization of fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, and femur following trauma. Femoral traction pins are traditionally inserted via medial-to-lateral (MTL) entry to accurately direct the pin away from the medial neurovascular bundle. Alternatively, cadaveric studies have demonstrated low risk to the neurovascular bundle using a lateral-to-medial (LTM) approach. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of complications of LTM and MTL femoral traction pin placement at a single institution. This was a retrospective review of patients from the orthopaedic consult registry at a academic Level I Trauma Center. We identified 233 LTM femoral traction pin procedures in 231 patients and 29 MTL pin procedures in 29 patients. The two pin placement techniques were compared with respect to complications, specifically the incidence of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and heterotopic ossification after femoral traction pin placement. Two complications were reported. One patient developed heterotopic ossification along the pin tract after LTM traction pin placement. Another patient developed septic arthritis after LTM pin placement, likely attributable to retrograde intramedullary nailing of his open femur fracture rather than his traction pin. There were no reports of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, or osteomyelitis associated with pin placement. The complication rate was 0.9% for LTM group and 0.0% for MTL group (p = 0.616). LTM femoral traction pin placement is a safe procedure with a similarly low complication rate compared with traditional MTL placement when the limb is positioned in neutral alignment. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(4):259-262, 2023).