These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis.
    Author: Zhang Y, Tian S, Liu M, Zhai W, Zhou Y, Peng A.
    Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2023 May 19; 24(1):401. PubMed ID: 37208629.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. METHOD: This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5-7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. RESULTS: The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12-40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0-44.0) and 20.3 (15.0-24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5-5.5) versus 3.2(1.5-6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2-11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). CONCLUSION: BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]