带锁髓内钉的抗生素陶瓷涂层预防和治疗长骨感染

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2022-04-22 DOI:10.5194/jbji-7-101-2022
Emilie-Ann Downey, Kayla M. Jaime, Taylor J. Reif, A. Makhdom, S. Rozbruch, A. Fragomen
{"title":"带锁髓内钉的抗生素陶瓷涂层预防和治疗长骨感染","authors":"Emilie-Ann Downey, Kayla M. Jaime, Taylor J. Reif, A. Makhdom, S. Rozbruch, A. Fragomen","doi":"10.5194/jbji-7-101-2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: The study was done (1) to report on our recent experience with antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate-coated interlocking intramedullary nails (CS-IMN) for infection prevention or infection eradication and (2) to compare the efficacy of CS-IMN versus antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate-coated IMN (PMMA-IMN) for infection eradication. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent a limb salvage procedure for infection cure or infection prevention with PMMA-IMN or CS-IMN. We reviewed patient demographics, host-type, pre-operative infecting organisms, intraoperative cultures, as well as our main outcomes: infection control rate, achievement of union/fusion, and limb salvage. Results: 33 patients were treated with CS-IMN: 9 patients with goal of infection cure and 24 patients for infection prophylaxis. When used for infection prophylaxis, there was a 100 % ( 24/24 patients) prevention of infection rate, 95.5 % union rate ( 21/22 patients), and 100 % ( 24/24 patients) limb salvage rate. Nine patients were treated with CS-IMN to eradicate infection and were compared to a cohort of 28 patients who were treated with PMMA-IMN. The infection was eradicated in 7/9 patients (77.8 %) in the CS-IMN group versus 21/26 patients (80 %) in the PMMA-IMN group ( p=0.44 ). Bone union/fusion was achieved in 8/9 patients (88.9 %) in the CS-IMN group versus 21/24 patients (87.5 %) in the PMMA-IMN group ( p=0.11 ). The limb salvage rate in the CS-IMN group was 100 % ( 9/9 patients) versus 89 % ( 25/28 patients) in the PMMA-IMN group. Conclusions: CS-IMN are safe and easy to use, and we have therefore expended our indications for them. CS-IMN are very effective at infection prophylaxis in high-risk cases where infection is suspected. Early analysis suggests that CS-IMN are non-inferior to PMMA-IMN for infection eradication. This is our preliminary data that show this novel technique to be safe in a small cohort and may be as effective as the more established method. Future studies with larger cohorts of patients will be required to confirm these findings.","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prophylaxis and treatment of infection in long bones using an antibiotic-loaded ceramic coating with interlocking intramedullary nails\",\"authors\":\"Emilie-Ann Downey, Kayla M. Jaime, Taylor J. Reif, A. Makhdom, S. Rozbruch, A. Fragomen\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/jbji-7-101-2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background: The study was done (1) to report on our recent experience with antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate-coated interlocking intramedullary nails (CS-IMN) for infection prevention or infection eradication and (2) to compare the efficacy of CS-IMN versus antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate-coated IMN (PMMA-IMN) for infection eradication. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent a limb salvage procedure for infection cure or infection prevention with PMMA-IMN or CS-IMN. We reviewed patient demographics, host-type, pre-operative infecting organisms, intraoperative cultures, as well as our main outcomes: infection control rate, achievement of union/fusion, and limb salvage. Results: 33 patients were treated with CS-IMN: 9 patients with goal of infection cure and 24 patients for infection prophylaxis. When used for infection prophylaxis, there was a 100 % ( 24/24 patients) prevention of infection rate, 95.5 % union rate ( 21/22 patients), and 100 % ( 24/24 patients) limb salvage rate. Nine patients were treated with CS-IMN to eradicate infection and were compared to a cohort of 28 patients who were treated with PMMA-IMN. The infection was eradicated in 7/9 patients (77.8 %) in the CS-IMN group versus 21/26 patients (80 %) in the PMMA-IMN group ( p=0.44 ). Bone union/fusion was achieved in 8/9 patients (88.9 %) in the CS-IMN group versus 21/24 patients (87.5 %) in the PMMA-IMN group ( p=0.11 ). The limb salvage rate in the CS-IMN group was 100 % ( 9/9 patients) versus 89 % ( 25/28 patients) in the PMMA-IMN group. Conclusions: CS-IMN are safe and easy to use, and we have therefore expended our indications for them. CS-IMN are very effective at infection prophylaxis in high-risk cases where infection is suspected. Early analysis suggests that CS-IMN are non-inferior to PMMA-IMN for infection eradication. This is our preliminary data that show this novel technique to be safe in a small cohort and may be as effective as the more established method. Future studies with larger cohorts of patients will be required to confirm these findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-7-101-2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-7-101-2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要背景:本研究(1)报告了我们最近使用抗生素负载硫酸钙涂层交锁髓内钉(CS-IMN)预防或根除感染的经验;(2)比较了CS-IMN与抗生素负载聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯涂层交锁钉(PMMA-IMN)根除感染的疗效。方法:我们回顾性回顾了连续接受保肢手术的患者的医疗记录,这些患者使用PMMA-IMN或CS-IMN治疗或预防感染。我们回顾了患者人口统计学、宿主类型、术前感染生物体、术中培养以及我们的主要结果:感染控制率、愈合/融合的实现和肢体挽救。结果:33例患者接受了CS-IMN治疗:9例以感染治愈为目标,24例以感染预防为目标。当用于感染预防时,有100 % (24/24患者)预防感染率,95.5 % 愈合率(21/22名患者)和100 % (24/24例)保肢率。9名患者接受了CS-IMN治疗以消除感染,并与28名接受PMMA-IMN治疗的患者进行了比较。7/9的患者(77.8 %) CS-IMN组与21/26名患者(80 %) 在PMMA-IMN组中(p=0.44)。8/9例患者(88.9 %) CS-IMN组与21/24患者(87.5 %) 在PMMA-IMN组中(p=0.11)。CS-IMN组的肢体挽救率为100 % (9/9名患者)与89名患者 % (25/28名患者)。结论:CS-IMN是安全且易于使用的,因此我们已经扩大了它们的适应症。CS-IMN在疑似感染的高危病例中预防感染非常有效。早期分析表明,CS-IMN在根除感染方面不劣于PMMA-IMN。这是我们的初步数据,表明这种新技术在小规模队列中是安全的,并且可能与更成熟的方法一样有效。未来需要对更大的患者群体进行研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Prophylaxis and treatment of infection in long bones using an antibiotic-loaded ceramic coating with interlocking intramedullary nails
Abstract Background: The study was done (1) to report on our recent experience with antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate-coated interlocking intramedullary nails (CS-IMN) for infection prevention or infection eradication and (2) to compare the efficacy of CS-IMN versus antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate-coated IMN (PMMA-IMN) for infection eradication. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent a limb salvage procedure for infection cure or infection prevention with PMMA-IMN or CS-IMN. We reviewed patient demographics, host-type, pre-operative infecting organisms, intraoperative cultures, as well as our main outcomes: infection control rate, achievement of union/fusion, and limb salvage. Results: 33 patients were treated with CS-IMN: 9 patients with goal of infection cure and 24 patients for infection prophylaxis. When used for infection prophylaxis, there was a 100 % ( 24/24 patients) prevention of infection rate, 95.5 % union rate ( 21/22 patients), and 100 % ( 24/24 patients) limb salvage rate. Nine patients were treated with CS-IMN to eradicate infection and were compared to a cohort of 28 patients who were treated with PMMA-IMN. The infection was eradicated in 7/9 patients (77.8 %) in the CS-IMN group versus 21/26 patients (80 %) in the PMMA-IMN group ( p=0.44 ). Bone union/fusion was achieved in 8/9 patients (88.9 %) in the CS-IMN group versus 21/24 patients (87.5 %) in the PMMA-IMN group ( p=0.11 ). The limb salvage rate in the CS-IMN group was 100 % ( 9/9 patients) versus 89 % ( 25/28 patients) in the PMMA-IMN group. Conclusions: CS-IMN are safe and easy to use, and we have therefore expended our indications for them. CS-IMN are very effective at infection prophylaxis in high-risk cases where infection is suspected. Early analysis suggests that CS-IMN are non-inferior to PMMA-IMN for infection eradication. This is our preliminary data that show this novel technique to be safe in a small cohort and may be as effective as the more established method. Future studies with larger cohorts of patients will be required to confirm these findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Musculoskeletal manifestations of lower-extremity coccidioidomycosis: a case series Emergence of rifampicin-resistant staphylococci on the skin and nose of rifampicin-treated patients with an orthopaedic-device-related infection What is the agreement between principles and practice of antibiotic stewardship in the management of diabetic foot infection: an in-hospital quality control study. It is time for a unified definition of native vertebral osteomyelitis: a framework proposal. Ureaplasma urealyticum osteomyelitis of the greater trochanter in a patient with multiple sclerosis using ocrelizumab – a case report
×
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