Infected hardware after surgical stabilization of rib fractures: outcomes and management experience

CA Thiels, JM Aho, ND Naik, MD Zielinski… - Journal of Trauma …, 2016 - journals.lww.com
CA Thiels, JM Aho, ND Naik, MD Zielinski, HJ Schiller, DS Morris, BD Kim
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2016journals.lww.com
BACKGROUND Surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF) is increasingly used for
treatment of rib fractures. There are few data on the incidence, risk factors, outcomes, and
optimal management strategy for hardware infection in these patients. We aimed to develop
and propose a management algorithm to help others treat this potentially morbid
complication. METHODS We retrospectively searched a prospectively collected rib fracture
database for the records of all patients who underwent SSRF from August 2009 through …
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF) is increasingly used for treatment of rib fractures. There are few data on the incidence, risk factors, outcomes, and optimal management strategy for hardware infection in these patients. We aimed to develop and propose a management algorithm to help others treat this potentially morbid complication.
METHODS
We retrospectively searched a prospectively collected rib fracture database for the records of all patients who underwent SSRF from August 2009 through March 2014 at our institution. We then analyzed for the subsequent development of hardware infection among these patients. Standard descriptive analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Among 122 patients who underwent SSRF, most (73%) were men; the mean (SD) age was 59.5 (16.4) years, and median (interquartile range [IQR]) Injury Severity Score was 17 (13–22). The median number of rib fractures was 7 (5–9) and 48% of the patients had flail chest. Mortality at 30 days was 0.8%. Five patients (4.1%) had a hardware infection on mean (SD) postoperative day 12.0 (6.6). Median Injury Severity Score (17 [range, 13–42]) and hospital length of stay (9 days [6–37 days]) in these patients were similar to the values for those without infection (17 days [range, 13–22 days] and 9 days [6–12 days], respectively). Patients with infection underwent a median (IQR) of 2 (range, 2–3) additional operations, which included wound debridement (n= 5), negative-pressure wound therapy (n= 3), and antibiotic beads (n= 4). Hardware was removed in 3 patients at 140, 190, and 192 days after index operation. Cultures grew only gram-positive organisms. No patients required reintervention after hardware removal, and all achieved bony union and were taking no narcotics or antibiotics at the latest follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Although uncommon, hardware infection after SSRF carries considerable morbidity. With the use of an aggressive multimodal management strategy, however, bony union and favorable long-term outcomes can be achieved.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果