Surgical site infection after wound closure with staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study surgical site infection of wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to search for randomized controlled trials that compared surgical site infection after wound closure using staples versus sutures in elective knee and hip arthroplasties. The primary outcome was surgical site infection. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval with a random-effects model were assessed. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this study, including 2 studies with a low risk of bias, 4 studies having 'some concerns', and 2 studies with high risk of bias. Significant difference was not found in the risk of SSI for patients with staples (n = 557) versus sutures (n = 573) (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 0.94-3.08, I2 = 16%). The results were similar after excluding the studies with a high risk of bias (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.91-3.07, I2 = 32%). Analysis of studies with low risk of bias revealed a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection in patients with staples (n = 331) compared to sutures (n = 331) (RR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.20-5.44, I2 = 0%). There was no difference between continuous and interrupted sutures (P > 0.05). In hip arthroplasty, stapling carried a significantly higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing (RR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15-5.50, I2 = 0%), but there was no significant difference in knee arthroplasty (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.25, I2 = 22%; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Stapling might carry a higher risk of surgical site infection than suturing in elective knee and hip arthroplasties, especially in hip arthroplasty.

Adoption of direct discharge of simple stable injuries amongst (orthopaedic) trauma surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of routine follow-up of several relatively simple stable injuries (SSIs) is questionable. Multiple studies show that direct discharge (DD) of patients with SSIs from the Emergency Department results in patient outcomes and experiences comparable to 'standard care' with outpatient follow-up. The purpose of this study was to evaluate to which extent DD of SSIs has been adopted amongst trauma and orthopedic surgeons internationally, and to assess the variation in the management of these common injuries. METHODS: An online survey was sent to members of an international trauma- and orthopaedic surgery collaboration. Participants, all trauma- or orthopaedic surgeons, were presented with eleven hypothetical cases of patients with simple stable injuries in which they were asked to outline their treatment plan regarding number of follow-up appointments and radiographs, physiotherapy and when to start functional movement. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons selecting direct discharge (i.e. zero scheduled appointments), per injury. Secondary outcomes included clinical agreement (>80% of respondents answering similarly) on total number of follow-up appointments (0, 1 or ≥2), radiographs (0, 1 or ≥2), routine physiotherapy referral (yes/no) and when to start functional movement (weeks). RESULTS: 138 of 667 (20.7%) surgeons completed the survey. Adoption of direct discharge ranged from 4-45% of case examples. In 10 out of 11 cases, less than 25% of surgeons selected direct discharge. Clinical agreement regarding number of appointments and when to start functional movement was not reached for any of the injuries. There was clinical agreement on number of radiographs for one injury and for four injuries regarding routine referral to a physiotherapist. DISCUSSION: Despite available evidence, DD of SSIs has not been widely adopted worldwide. Practice variation still exists even for these common injuries. This variation suggests inefficiency and consequently unnecessarily high healthcare costs. (Orthopaedic) trauma surgeons are encouraged to evaluate their current treatment protocols of SSIs.

Large variation in use of patient-reported outcome measures: A survey of 188 foot and ankle surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use. METHODS: Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group-Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs. RESULTS: 188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%). CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is needed.

Perioperative management of external fixation in staged protocols: an international survey.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the frequent use of external fixation, various regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical technique and postoperative pin care exist and underline the lack of current evidence. The aim of the study was to assess the variability or consensus in perioperative protocols to prevent implant-associated infections for temporary external fixation in closed fractures of the extremities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 26-question survey was sent to 170 members of the Traumaplatform. The survey included questions concerning demographics, level of training, type of training and perioperative protocols as: antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative management, disinfection and postoperative pin site care. All responses were statistically analysed, and intraoperative measures rated on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The responses of fifty orthopaedic trauma and general surgeons (response rate, 29.4%) were analysed. The level of experience was more than 5 years in 92% (n = 46) with up to 50 closed fractures of the extremities annually treated with external fixation in 80% (n = 40). Highest consensus could be identified in the following perioperative measures: preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with a second-generation cephalosporin (86%, n = 43), changing gloves if manipulation of the external fixator is necessary during surgery (86%, n = 43; 4.12 points on the Likert scale), avoid overlapping of the pin sites with the definitive implant site (94%, n = 47; 4.12 points on the Likert scale) and soft tissue protection with a drill sleeve (83.6%, n = 41). CONCLUSION: Our survey could identify some general principles, which were rated as important by a majority of the respondents. Futures studies' focus should elucidate the role of perioperative antibiotics and different disinfection protocols on implant-associated infections after temporary external fixation in staged protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Level IV evidence according to Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine.

Guesstimation of posterior malleolar fractures on lateral plain radiographs.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of articular involvement of the posterior malleolar fracture fragments in ankle fractures is essential, as this is the leading argument for internal fixation. The purpose of this study is to assess diagnostic accuracy of measurements on plain lateral radiographs. METHODS: Quantification of three-dimensional computed tomography (Q-3D-CT) was used as a reference standard for true articular involvement (mm(2)) of posterior malleolar fractures. One-hundred Orthopaedic Trauma surgeons were willing to review 31 trimalleolar ankle fractures to estimate size of posterior malleolus and answer: (1) what is the involved articular surface of the posterior malleolar fracture as a percentage of the tibial plafond? and (2) would you fix the posterior malleolus? RESULTS: The average posterior malleolar fragment involved 13.5% (SD 10.8) of the tibial plafond articular surface, as quantified using Q-3D-CT. The average involvement of articular surface of the posterior malleolar fragment, as estimated by 100 observers on plain radiographs was 24.4% (SD 10.0). The factor 1.8 overestimation of articular involvement was statistically significant (p<0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of measurements on plain lateral radiographs was 22%. Interobserver agreement (ICC) was 0.61. Agreement on operative fixation, showed an ICC of 0.54 (Haraguchi type I=0.76, Haraguchi type II=0.40, Haraguchi type III=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of measurements on plain lateral radiographs to assess articular involvement of posterior malleolar fractures is poor. There is a tendency to misjudge posteromedial involvement (Haraguchi type II).