• Pien Hellebrekers, Verhofstad Michiel H J MHJ Trauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Leenen Luke P H LPH Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Hilal Varol, van Lieshout Esther M M EMM Trauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., and Falco Hietbrink.
• Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. p.hellebrekers@umcutrecht.nl.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Dec 1; 46 (6): 1341-1350.

PurposeInfection near metal implants is a problem that presents challenging treatment dilemmas for physicians. The aim of this study was to analyse the efficacy of two treatment protocols for acute fracture-related infections.MethodsSeventy-one patients in two level-1 trauma centres in the Netherlands were retrospectively included in this study. These trauma centres had different standardised protocols for acute infection after osteosynthesis: 39 patients were selected from protocol A and 32 from protocol B. Both protocols involve immediate surgical debridement and soft tissue coverage, but differ in antibiotic approach: (A) immediate empirical combination antibiotic therapy with rifampicin, or (B) postponed (1-5 days) targeted antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome of these protocols was success, defined as a fracture healing in the absence of infection. The secondary outcome was antibiotic resistance patterns. Logistic regression was conducted on patients and treatment-related factors in association with primary success.ResultsPrimary success was achieved in 72% of protocol A patients, in 47% of those in protocol B (P = 0.033), and with prolongation of treatment success was achieved in 90% and 78% of patients, respectively. Protocol A exhibited a better primary success rate (adjusted OR 3.45, CI 1.13-10.52) when adjusted for age and soft tissue injury. There was no significant difference in antibiotic resistance between the two protocols.ConclusionBoth protocols yielded high overall success rates. Immediate empirical antibiotics can be used safely without additional bacterial resistance and may contribute to increased success rates.

34 keywords...

hide…