Dataset Information

The Effect of Delayed Surgical Debridement in the Management of Open Tibial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients' lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental complications such as infection and non-union; however, the exact timing of debridement remains a topic of great controversy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between timing of surgical debridement and outcomes such as infection and non-union in open tibial fractures.

Materials and methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to capture studies evaluating the association between timing of initial surgical debridement and infection or non-union, or other reported outcomes. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central and Web of Science electronic databases. Our methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

Results

The systematic review included 20 studies with 10,032 open tibial fractures. The overall infection rate was 14.3% (314 out of 2193) and the overall non-union rate 14.2% (116 out of 817). We did not find any statistically significant association between delayed debridement and infection rate (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.11; p = 0.23) or non-union rate (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.15; p = 0.13). These findings did not change when we accounted for the effect of different time thresholds used for defining early and late debridement, nor with the Gustilo-Anderson classification or varying study characteristics.

Conclusion

The findings of this meta-analysis support that delayed surgical debridement does not increase the infection or non-union rates in open tibial fracture injuries. Consequently, we propose that a reasonable delay in the initial debridement is acceptable to ensure that optimal management conditions are in place, such that the availability of surgical expertise, skilled staff and equipment are prioritised over getting to surgery rapidly. We recommend changing the standard guidance around timing for performing surgical debridement to 'as soon as reasonably possible, once appropriate personnel and equipment are available; ideally within 24-h'.

SUBMITTER: Nicolaides M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8228778 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo examine the condition and triggers of stress fractures of the lateral tibial plateau (LTP) similar to type III lateral hinge fractures (LHFs) after open wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO).MethodsOWHTO was performed in 118 knees. They were examined for LHFs by computed tomography (CT). Patients were divided into the stress fracture group (Group SF) if they showed fracture lines on CT performed after starting weight-bearing walking and the normal group (Group N) for others.ResultsThe mean age was significantly older in Group SF (P = 0.022). Preoperatively, Group SF showed a significantly higher tibio-femoral angle (TFA, P = 0.014). No significant differences were observed in TFA and weight-bearing line ratio after surgery. Correction angle was significantly higher in the SF group. And all of the SF were more than 13 degrees. There was no significant difference in LHF incidence between groups, whereas stress fracture incidence differed significantly for each type of LHF (chi-squared test, P = 0.0001): 14.6% of type I cases, 100% of type II cases, 0% of type III cases, and 6.1% of those without LHF.DiscussionThe load on the LTP is assumed to act as a shearing force in type II fractures, which may contribute greatly to stress fractures. In type III, stress fractures may not occur because of the load dispersed at the fracture part. The stress fracture site is similar to type III LHF, and this kind of fracture is thought to be a delayed type III because it occurs after patients start weight-bearing walking. Moreover, they are observed in type I cases with a stable hinge and in 6% of cases without LHF. This study showed that high varus knees corrected with a large correction angle may develop stress fractures. OWHTO requires attention to stress fractures of the LTP, which can be regarded as delayed type III, in those developing LHFs postoperatively or having a high varus knee preoperatively.ConclusionThese results indicated the possibility of stress fracture in LTP during weight-bearing exercise after OWHTO, which was regarded as a delayed type III fracture. The results showed that Correction angle was more than 13 degrees, and lateral hinge fracture type II of the Takeuchi classification was an inducement of this stress fracture.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

Project description:BackgroundOpen tibial shaft fractures are one of the most devastating orthopaedic injuries. Surgical treatment options include reamed or unreamed nailing, plating, Ender nails, Ilizarov fixation, and external fixation. Using a network meta-analysis allows comparison and facilitates pooling of a diverse population of randomized trials across these approaches in ways that a traditional meta-analysis does not.Questions/purposesOur aim was to perform a network meta-analysis using evidence from randomized trials on the relative effect of alternative approaches on the risk of unplanned reoperation after open fractures of the tibial diaphysis. Our secondary study endpoints included malunion, deep infection, and superficial infection.MethodsA network meta-analysis allows for simultaneous consideration of the relative effectiveness of multiple treatment alternatives. To do this on the subject of surgical treatments for open tibial fractures, we began with systematic searches of databases (including EMBASE and MEDLINE) and performed hand searches of orthopaedic journals, bibliographies, abstracts from orthopaedic conferences, and orthopaedic textbooks, for all relevant material published between 1980 and 2013. Two authors independently screened abstracts and manuscripts and extracted the data, three evaluated the risk of bias in individual studies, and two applied Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to bodies of evidence. We included all randomized and quasirandomized trials comparing two (or more) surgical treatment options for open tibial shaft fractures in predominantly (ie, > 80%) adult patients. We calculated pooled estimates for all direct comparisons and conducted a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence for all 15 comparisons between six stabilization strategies. Fourteen trials published between 1989 and November 2011 met our inclusion criteria; the trials comprised a total of 1279 patients surgically treated for open tibial shaft fractures.ResultsModerate confidence evidence showed that unreamed nailing may reduce the likelihood of reoperation compared with external fixation (network odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62; p < 0.05), although not necessarily compared with reamed nailing (direct OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.45-1.24; p = 0.25). Only low- or very low-quality evidence informed the primary outcome for other treatment comparisons, such as those involving internal plate fixation, Ilizarov external fixation, and Ender nailing. Method ranking based on reoperation data showed that unreamed nailing had the highest probability of being the best treatment, followed by reamed nailing, external fixation, and plate fixation. CIs around pooled estimates of malunion and infection risk were very wide, and therefore no conclusive results could be made based on these data.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that intramedullary nailing may be superior to other fixation strategies for open tibial shaft fractures. Use of unreamed nails over reamed nails also may be advantageous in the setting of open fractures, but this remains to be confirmed. Unfortunately, these conclusions are based on trials that have had high risk of bias and poor precision. Larger and higher-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these conclusions and better inform clinical decision-making.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporotic vertebral fractures affect a large number of older adults OBJECTIVES: Systematically review evidence of the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with standard care (control); and evaluate the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with an alternative non-pharmacological, non-invasive intervention.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and COCHRANE) were searched. Eligible trials included participants with primary osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture diagnosed on radiographs, with treatment that was non-surgical and non-pharmacological involving more than one session.ResultsTwenty randomized controlled trials were included with 2083 participants with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Exercise, bracing, multimodal therapy, electrotherapy, and taping were investigated interventions. Meta-analyses provided low certainty evidence that exercise interventions compared to no exercise were effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (mean difference (MD)= 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08, 1.93), and low certainty evidence that rigid bracing intervention compared with no bracing was effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (MD= 2.61; 95%CI: 0.95, 4.27). Meta-analyses showed no differences in harms between exercise and no exercise groups. No health-related quality of life or activity improvements were demonstrated for exercise interventions, bracing, electrotherapy, or multimodal interventions.ConclusionsExercise and rigid bracing as management for patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures may have a small benefit for pain without increasing risk of harm.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42012002936.