Change in Gustilo-Anderson classification at time of surgery does not increase risk for surgical site infection in patients with open fractures: A secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial.

Daniel Axelrod, Marianne Comeau-Gauthier, Carlos Prada, Sofia Bzovsky, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Brad Petrisor, Kyle Jeray, Mohit Bhandari, Emil Schemitsch, Sheila Sprague
{"title":"Change in Gustilo-Anderson classification at time of surgery does not increase risk for surgical site infection in patients with open fractures: A secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Daniel Axelrod, Marianne Comeau-Gauthier, Carlos Prada, Sofia Bzovsky, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Brad Petrisor, Kyle Jeray, Mohit Bhandari, Emil Schemitsch, Sheila Sprague","doi":"10.1097/OI9.0000000000000231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Open fractures represent a major source of morbidity. Surgical site infections (SSIs) after open fractures are associated with a high rate of reoperations and hospitalizations, which are associated with a lower health-related quality of life. Early antibiotic delivery, typically chosen through an assessment of the size and contamination of the wound, has been shown to be an effective technique to reduce the risk of SSI in open fractures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification (GAC) was devised as a grading system of open fractures <i>after</i> a complete operative debridement of the wound had been undertaken but is commonly used <i>preoperatively</i> to help with the choice of initial antibiotics. Incorrect preoperative GAC, leading to less aggressive initial management, may influence the risk of SSI after open fracture. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) how often the GAC changed from the initial to definitive grading, (2) the injury and patient characteristics associated with increases and decreases of the GAC, and (3) whether a change in GAC was associated with an increased risk of SSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the FLOW trial, a large multicenter randomized study, we used descriptive statistics to quantify how frequently the GAC changed from the initial to definitive grading. We used regression models to determine which injury and patient characteristics were associated with increases and decreases in GAC and whether a change in GAC was associated with SSI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2420 participants included, 305 participants had their preoperative GAC change (12.6%). The factors associated with upgrading the GAC (from preoperative score to the definitive assessment) included fracture sites other than the tibia, bone loss at presentation, width of wound, length of wound, and skin loss at presentation. However, initial misclassification of type III fractures as type II fractures was not associated with an increased risk of SSI (<i>P</i> = 0.14).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When treating patients with open fracture wounds, surgeons should consider that 12% of all injuries may initially be misclassified when using the GAC, particularly fractures that have bone loss at presentation or those located in sites different than the tibia. However, even in misclassified fractures, it did not seem to increase the risk of SSI.</p>","PeriodicalId":74381,"journal":{"name":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","volume":"6 1","pages":"e231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cb/22/otai-6-e231.PMC9904191.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Open fractures represent a major source of morbidity. Surgical site infections (SSIs) after open fractures are associated with a high rate of reoperations and hospitalizations, which are associated with a lower health-related quality of life. Early antibiotic delivery, typically chosen through an assessment of the size and contamination of the wound, has been shown to be an effective technique to reduce the risk of SSI in open fractures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification (GAC) was devised as a grading system of open fractures after a complete operative debridement of the wound had been undertaken but is commonly used preoperatively to help with the choice of initial antibiotics. Incorrect preoperative GAC, leading to less aggressive initial management, may influence the risk of SSI after open fracture. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) how often the GAC changed from the initial to definitive grading, (2) the injury and patient characteristics associated with increases and decreases of the GAC, and (3) whether a change in GAC was associated with an increased risk of SSI.

Methods: Using data from the FLOW trial, a large multicenter randomized study, we used descriptive statistics to quantify how frequently the GAC changed from the initial to definitive grading. We used regression models to determine which injury and patient characteristics were associated with increases and decreases in GAC and whether a change in GAC was associated with SSI.

Results: Of the 2420 participants included, 305 participants had their preoperative GAC change (12.6%). The factors associated with upgrading the GAC (from preoperative score to the definitive assessment) included fracture sites other than the tibia, bone loss at presentation, width of wound, length of wound, and skin loss at presentation. However, initial misclassification of type III fractures as type II fractures was not associated with an increased risk of SSI (P = 0.14).

Conclusions: When treating patients with open fracture wounds, surgeons should consider that 12% of all injuries may initially be misclassified when using the GAC, particularly fractures that have bone loss at presentation or those located in sites different than the tibia. However, even in misclassified fractures, it did not seem to increase the risk of SSI.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手术时古斯蒂洛-安德森分级的变化不会增加开放性骨折患者手术部位感染的风险:一项多中心、前瞻性随机对照试验的二次分析。
导言:开放性骨折是发病率的主要来源。开放性骨折后的手术部位感染(SSI)与较高的再次手术率和住院率有关,而再次手术率和住院率与较低的健康相关生活质量有关。早期使用抗生素通常是通过评估伤口的大小和污染情况来选择的,已被证明是降低开放性骨折 SSI 风险的有效技术。Gustilo-Anderson分类法(GAC)是在对伤口进行完全手术清创后设计的开放性骨折分级系统,但通常用于术前帮助选择初始抗生素。不正确的术前 GAC 可能会导致较不积极的初始治疗,从而影响开放性骨折后 SSI 的风险。本研究的目的是确定:(1) GAC 从初始分级到最终分级的变化频率;(2) 与 GAC 增减相关的损伤和患者特征;(3) GAC 的变化是否与 SSI 风险的增加有关:利用 FLOW 试验(一项大型多中心随机研究)的数据,我们使用描述性统计来量化 GAC 从初始分级到最终分级的变化频率。我们使用回归模型来确定哪些损伤和患者特征与 GAC 的增减相关,以及 GAC 的变化是否与 SSI 相关:结果:在纳入的 2420 名参与者中,有 305 名参与者的术前 GAC 发生了变化(12.6%)。与 GAC 升高(从术前评分到最终评估)相关的因素包括胫骨以外的骨折部位、出现时的骨质缺失、伤口宽度、伤口长度和出现时的皮肤缺失。然而,最初将 III 型骨折错误分类为 II 型骨折与 SSI 风险增加无关(P = 0.14):结论:在治疗开放性骨折伤口患者时,外科医生应考虑到在使用 GAC 时,12% 的损伤可能会在初期被错误分类,尤其是在出现骨缺损或位于胫骨以外部位的骨折。不过,即使是分类错误的骨折,似乎也不会增加 SSI 的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Patient perspectives on the desirability of social worker support in outpatient orthopaedic trauma clinics. Tension band tendon-approximating cerclage for surgical fixation of patellar fractures: a novel surgical technique. Erratum: Comparison of the Neer classification to the 2018 update of the Orthopedic Trauma Association/AO fracture classification for classifying proximal humerus fractures: Erratum. Impact of fracture type on conversion to total hip arthroplasty following surgical repair of acetabular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma center proliferation in the United States: concerns and potential solutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1