Single stage versus two-stage orthoplastic management of bone infection

被引:8
|
作者
Nasser, Ahmed A. H. [1 ]
Fenton, Paul [1 ]
Bose, Deepa [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Trauma & Orthopaed Specialty Registrar, Orthoplast Extrem Trauma Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hosp Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2TH, W Midlands, England
关键词
Osteomyelitis; Fracture related infection; FRI; Orthoplastic; External fixation; CHRONIC OSTEOMYELITIS; MUSCLE FLAP; LONG BONES; RECONSTRUCTION; NONUNION; TRAUMA;
D O I
10.1016/j.injury.2022.01.020
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction: Bone infection cases with major soft tissue loss have conventionally been treated with a staged orthoplastic approach, addressing the infection first followed by definitive management to achieve bony stability and soft tissue cover. In the last few decades, specialist centers have advocated for single stage bony stabilization with soft tissue coverage. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients that underwent a single stage versus a two-stage orthoplastic intervention. Methods: Using an existing 2009-2019 database from a single major trauma centre, we identified all adults with a diagnosis of fracture related infection (FRI) or osteomyelitis (OM). The primary outcome was resolution of infection. Secondary outcomes included time to bony union, amputation, failure of orthopaedic fixation, mortality, and return to theatre. Results: A total of 96 patients were included. 71 patients (74%) underwent a single stage procedure; out of which 61 were FRI. 25 patients (26%) underwent a two-stage procedure; out of which 24 were FRI. The average follow up for the single stage and two-stage cohorts was 32.1 and 30.3 months, respectively. Resolution of infection without the need for an amputation was achieved in 67 (94.4%) patients in the single stage cohort and in 23 (92%) patients in the two-stage cohort. When compared to the two-stage group, the single stage cohort had less recurrence of infection (9.9% versus 12%, p = 0.72), lower rates of amputation (8.5% versus 12%, p = 0.69), lower rates of failure of orthopaedic fixation (11.1% versus 13%, p = 0.82), but higher average time to bony union (15.25 months versus 12.35, p = 0.42). The differences were not statistically significant. A total of 37 patients (52.1%) had an unplanned return to theatre in the single stage compared to 12 (48%) in the two-stage cohort. In subgroup analysis of FRI cases, open fractures had a longer time to bony union when compared to closed fractures (19.7 versus 11.6 months, p = 0.01). No mortality was observed in both cohorts. Conclusions: The single stage orthoplastic approach to bone infection is effective if planned carefully with clinical outcomes comparable to the two-stage approach. Further research should examine factors associated with unplanned return to theatre and any variation in treatment of bone infection across regions. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:984 / 991
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single-stage versus two-stage bone flap reconstruction in chronic osteomyelitis: Multicenter outcomes comparison
    Piccato, Alice
    Crosio, Alessandro
    Antonini, Andrea
    Battiston, Bruno
    Titolo, Paolo
    Tos, Pierluigi
    Ciclamini, Davide
    [J]. MICROSURGERY, 2024, 44 (01)
  • [2] Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
    Pangaud, Corentin
    Ollivier, Matthieu
    Argenson, Jean-Noel
    [J]. EFORT OPEN REVIEWS, 2019, 4 (08) : 495 - 502
  • [3] Two-stage versus single-stage procedure for the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis in elderly patients: a retrospectively cohort study
    Zhou, Yong
    Zha, Wen-Zhang
    Fan, Ren-Gen
    Jiang, Guo-qin
    Wu, Xu-dong
    [J]. REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ENFERMEDADES DIGESTIVAS, 2019, 111 (03) : 176 - 181
  • [4] Allograft bone in two-stage revision of the hip for infection - Is it safe?
    Ammon, P
    Stockley, I
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2004, 86B (07): : 962 - 965
  • [5] Two-stage versus single-stage repair for severe hypospadias with moderate chordee
    Hassan, Mohamed E.
    [J]. ANNALS OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2014, 10 (04): : 125 - 129
  • [6] Two-Stage Versus Single-Stage Inventory Models with or without Repair Ability
    Bakal, Ismail Serdar
    Ozpamukcu, Serkan
    Bayindir, Pelin
    [J]. OPERATIONS RESEARCH PROCEEDINGS 2012, 2014, : 555 - 560
  • [7] One-stage Versus Two-stage Exchange
    Lichstein, Paul
    Gehrke, Thorsten
    Lombardi, Adolph
    Romano, Carlo
    Stockley, Ian
    Babis, George
    Bialecki, Jerzy
    Bucsi, Laszlo
    Cai, Xu
    Cao, Li
    de Beaubien, Brian
    Erhardt, Johannes
    Goodman, Stuart
    Jiranek, William
    Keogh, Peter
    Lewallen, David
    Manner, Paul
    Marczynski, Wojciech
    Mason, J. Bohannon
    Mulhall, Kevin
    Paprosky, Wayne
    Patel, Preetesh
    Piccaluga, Francisco
    Polkowski, Gregory
    Pulido, Luis
    Stockley, Ian
    Suarez, Juan
    Thorey, Fritz
    Tikhilov, Rashid
    Velazquez, Job Diego
    Winkler, Heinz
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2014, 32 : S141 - S146
  • [8] Single-stage versus two-stage surgery of pulmonary and hepatic hydatid cysts
    Kabiri, El Hassane
    El Hammoumi, Massine
    Bhairis, Mohamed
    [J]. KARDIOCHIRURGIA I TORAKOCHIRURGIA POLSKA-POLISH JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2021, 18 (03) : 139 - 144
  • [9] Two-stage Versus Single-stage Management of Patients with Choledocholithiasis: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Choudhary, Abhishek
    Winn, Jessica
    Arif, Murtaza
    Thapar, Manish
    Hammad, Hazem
    Grewal, Ajitinder
    Hammoud, Ghasan
    Bechtold, Matthew
    Ibdah, Jamal
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2010, 105 : S70 - S71
  • [10] Single-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Belay, Elshaday S.
    Danilkowicz, Richard
    Bullock, Garrett
    Wall, Kevin
    Garrigues, Grant E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2020, 29 (12) : 2476 - 2486