RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Grade III open tibial diaphyseal fractures are challenging to treat and controversy exists on whether to treat them with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or a circular frame (CF). This study aims to compare outcomes for intramedullary nail and circular frame in the treatment of open tibial diaphyseal fractures. METHODOLOGY: Retrospective study at a major trauma center of all patients admitted with a grade III open tibial diaphyseal fracture between January 2016 and January 2022. The primary outcome measures were major complications: non-union, malunion, refracture, DBI and amputation. Secondary outcome measures were time to union and reoperation rates. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included in the study, 32 patients in CF group and 23 patients in IMN group. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographics of patients in both groups. Major complications were recorded in 13 limbs (54%) in IMN group and in 18 limbs (56%) in CF group which were not statistically significant (p = 0.797). Deep bone infection rates were noted in 4 (12.5%) in the CF group, compared to 1 (4%) in IMN group; however, the result was not statistically significant (p = 0.240). Amputation rates as a result of infected non-unions were seen in 1 limb (4%) in IMN group and 2 limbs (6%) in CF group (p = 0.99). Median time to union was significantly shorter in IMN group at 30 weeks compared to 30 weeks for CF group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: IMN should be the treatment of choice in the treatment of grade III open tibial diaphyseal fracture, but CF should be considered for delayed treatment and in patients with bone loss.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts can be a major cause of morbidity. Choosing the appropriate dressing for these wounds is crucial to successful healing. Various types of dressing are available, including hydrogel dressings. A review of current evidence is required to guide clinical decision-making on the choice of dressing for the treatment of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds following split-thickness skin grafts for wound healing. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2022 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrogel dressings with other types of dressing, topical treatments or no dressing, or with different types of hydrogel dressings in managing donor site wounds irrespective of language and publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 1, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (162 participants) in this review. One study with three arms and 101 participants (15 months' duration) was conducted in a children's hospital, and compared hydrogel dressings in the form of Sorbact with Algisite, an alginate dressing and Cuticerin, a smooth acetate gauze impregnated with water-repellent ointment. Another study with two arms and 61 participants (19 months' duration) was conducted in three surgery departments and compared an octenidine-containing hydrogel dressing with an identical non-antimicrobial hydrogel dressing. We identified no studies that compared hydrogel dressings with another therapy such as a topical agent (a topical agent is a cream, an ointment or a solution that is applied directly to the wound), or no dressing, or a combination of hydrogel dressings and another therapy versus another therapy alone. Both studies were at high risk of attrition bias and the second study was also at unclear risk of selection bias. Amorphous hydrogel dressings versus other types of dressings Amorphous hydrogel dressings may increase time to wound healing when compared with alginate (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 2.78; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or Cuticerin dressings (MD 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.79; 1 study, 68 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of amorphous hydrogel dressings compared with other types of dressings is uncertain for pain at the donor site and wound complications, including scarring and itching (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The study did not report health-related quality of life or wound infection. Octenidine-based hydrogel dressing versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressing The effect of octenidine-based hydrogel dressings versus octenidine-free hydrogel dressings is uncertain for time to wound healing (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52; 1 study, 41 participants) and wound infection, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. The certainty of the evidence is also very low for adverse events, with two participants in the intervention group and one participant in the comparison group reporting adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.89; 1 study, 41 participants). The study did not report donor site pain, health-related quality of life, or wound complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of hydrogel dressings on donor site wounds of split thickness skin grafts compared with other types of dressings. There is a need for adequately powered and well-designed RCTs, with adequate sample sizes, types of populations and subgroups, types of interventions, and outcomes, that compare hydrogel dressings with other treatment options in the treatment of donor site wounds of split-thickness skin grafts.