Our Experiences in the Treatment of Anterior Chest Wall Infections (2015 - 2021).

Abstract

Background: Sternotomy is a classical surgical procedure for approaching the heart and mediastinum. Sternotomy wound infections can be superficial or deep.

Objective: The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the results of two treatments for deep sternal wound infection (DSWI), closed treatment (debridement, refixation and retrosternal irrigation) and open treatment (debridement, VAC therapy and then pectoral flap).

Methods: Retrospective analysis of two methods of treatment of DSWI in the period of six years. The first group (G1): surgical debridement, sternum fixation with, if necessary, retrosternal irrigation. The second group (G2): surgical debridement, open sternum with VAC therapy and subsequent pectoral flap with sternum refixation if necessary. Sternotomy wound infection will be classified according to the depth of the affected areas and the time of infection. Risk factors, outcome, local findings, number of revisions, number of hospital treatment days, types of isolates, etiology of sternotomy, time from onset of sternal instability to first surgical treatment will be observed.

Results: The number of patients with DSWI was 16, which represents 1% of all sternotomy in the observed period. Mortality in the DSWI group was 35%. Surgical myocardial revascularization was initially performed in 73% of patients with DSWI. Two risk factors for DSWI were in 32% of patients and 25% had diabetes mellitus. The average time for DSWI development in G1 was 10 days (min 0, max 30) and in G2 was 20 days (min 12, max 30). Number of revisions in G1 (min 1, max 2), G2 (min 1, max 3). Average number of hospital days were in G1 23.50 days (SD 13.15), and in G2 38.17 days (SD 28.65). The sternum was osteomyelitic and fragmented in 20% of patients. More than one revision occurred in 40% of patients. The main initial isolate was Enterococcus faecalis in 27% of all DSWI (dominantly in G1 2/3 of all).

Conclusion: We found that there is no statistically significant difference in observed treatments, and that each treatment has its own indications. We suggested that studies with a larger sample are needed for a definite opinion on this issue.