Uploaded byLawrenceWanderi
PPTX, PDF43 views

management_of_open_fractures.pptx

This document discusses open fractures, including their definition, classification, epidemiology, microbiology, treatment principles, and management. Some key points: - Open fractures involve a break in the skin and soft tissue leading directly to the fracture site. They were historically associated with high infection and mortality rates. - The Gustilo-Anderson classification system grades open fractures based on the degree of soft tissue injury from I to III (A, B, C). Higher grades correlate with increased risk of infection and impaired fracture healing. - Most open fracture infections are caused by bacteria acquired in the hospital rather than the initial trauma. Appropriate antibiotic treatment is crucial. - Goals of management include preserving life and limb,

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
Open Fractures
Definition • Break in the skin and underlying soft tissue leading directly into or communicating with the fracture and its hematoma
• Last century, high mortality with open fractures of long bones • Early amputation in order to prevent death • WWI, mortality of open femur fractures > 70% • 1939 Trueta “closed treatment of war fractures” – Included open wound treatment and then enclosure of the extremity in a cast – “Greatest danger of infection lay in muscle, not bone” Trueta J: "Closed" treatment of war fractures, Lacet 1939;1:1452-1455 History
• 1943 PCN on the battlefield quickly reduced rate of wound sepsis • Delayed closure of wounds • Hampton: closure btwn 4th and 7th day • Larger defects continued to be left open to heal by secondary intention Hampton OP Jr: Basic principles in management of open fractures; JAMA 1955; 159:417-419 History
• Advances shifted the focus – Preservation of life and limb  preservation of function and prevention of complications • However, amputation rates still exceed 50% in the most severe open tibial fractures assoc with vascular injury* Lange RH, Bach AW, Hansen ST et al: Open tibial fractures with associated vascular injuries: prognosis for limb salvage. J Trauma; 25(3):203- 208 History
Epidemiology • 3% of all limb fractures • 21.3 per 100,000 per year
http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
Open fracture classification • Allows comparison of results • Provides guidelines on prognosis and treatment – Fracture healing, infection and amputation rate correlate with the degree of soft tissue injury • Gustilo upgraded to Gustilo and Anderson • AO open fracture classification • Host classification of open fractures
Gustilo and Anderson Classification • Model is tibia, however applied to all types of open fractures • Emphasis on wound size – Crush injury assoc with small wounds – Sharp injury assoc with large wounds • Better to emphasize – Degree of soft tissue injury – Degree of contamination
TYPE I OPEN FRACTURE
Type 1 Open Fractures • Wound less than 1 cm, • Inside-out injury • Clean wound • Minimal soft tissue damage • No significant periosteal stripping http://www.unboundedmedicine.com/2005/11/08/open-fractures-classification-and-its-clinical-manifestations-3/
TYPE II OPEN FRACTURE
Type 2 Open Fractures • Moderate soft tissue damage • Outside-in • Higher energy • Some necrotic muscle • Some periosteal stripping
TYPE III-A OPEN FRACTURE
Type 3a Open Fractures • High energy • Outside-in • Extensive muscle devitalization • Bone coverage with existing soft tissue
TYPE III-B OPEN FRACTURE
Type 3b Open Fractures • High energy • Outside in • Extensive muscle devitalization • Requires a flap for bone coverage and soft tissue closure • Periosteal stripping
TYPE III-C OPEN FRACTURE
Type 3c Open Fractures • High energy • Increased risk of amputation and infection • Any grade 3 with major vascular injury requiring repair
Why use this classification? • Grades of soft tissue injury correlates with infection and fracture healing Grade 1 2 3A 3B 3C Infection Rates 0-2% 2-7% 10-25% 10-50% 25-50% Fracture Healing (weeks) 21-28 28-28 30-35 30-35 Amputation Rate 50%
Gustilo and Anderson Bowen and Widmaier* • 2005 Host classification predicts infection after open fracture – Gustilo and Anderson classification and the number of comorbidities predict infection risk – 174 patients with open fractures of long bones – Sorted into three classes based on 14 immunocompromising factors • Age>80, current nicotine use, DM, malignancy, pulmonary insufficiency, systemic immunodeficiency, etc Bowen TR, Widmaier JC. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;433:205-11.
What they found… • Patients with any compromising risk factor has increased risk of infection • May benefit from additional therapies that decrease the risk of infection. Bowen TR, Widmaier JC. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;433:205-11. Class Compromising factors Infection rates A 0 4% B 1-2 15% C 3 or more 31%
Gustilo Classification: a simple and useful tool, but is it accurate? • 1994 Brumback et al. • 125 randomized open fractures • 245 surgeons of various levels of training • 12 cases of open tibia fractures, videos used • Interobserver agreement poor – Range 42-94% for each fracture • Ortho attendings - 59% agreement • Ortho Trauma Fellowship trained attendings - 66% agreement Brumback RJ, Jones AL (1994) Interobserver agreement in the classification of open fractures of the tibia. The results of a survey of two hundred and forty-five orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone and Joint Am; 76(8):1162–1166.
So………. • Fracture type should not be classified in the ER • Most reliably done in the OR at the completion of primary wound care and debridement
http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
Radiological Examination • Usually, only AP and lateral radiographs are required – They should include adjacent joints and any associated injuries. • There are a number of features that the surgeon should look for when examining the radiographs http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
Radiological Examination • MRI and CT scans are rarely required in the acute situation but may be helpful in open pelvic, intra-articular, carpal, and tarsal fractures. • Angiography may be required in Gustilo IIIb or IIIc fractures. • In the polytraumatized patient, the surgeon must decide if a delay for further imaging is appropriate. http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
Microbiology • Most acute infections are caused by pathogens acquired in the hospital • 1976 Gustilo and Anderson – most infections in their study of 326 open fxs developed secondarily • When left open for >2wks, wounds were prone to nocosomial contaminants such as Pseudomonas and other GN bacteria • Currently most open fracture infections are caused by GNR and GP staph Gustilo RB, Anderson JT: Prevention of Infection in the Treatment of One Thousand and Twenty-five Open Fractures of Long Bones; JBJS, 58(4):453-458, June 1976
Nocosomial infection?!!!! • Only 18% of infections were caused by the same organism initially isolated in the perioperative cultures* • Carsenti-Etesse et al. 1999 – 92% of open fracture infections were caused by bacteria acquired while the patient was in the hospital** *Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J, Moore TM: Considerations in reducing the infection rate in open tibial fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Sep;(178):36-41. *Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, Shepherd L, Singer G, Ressler R, Harvey F, Holtom P: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combo antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Nov;14(8):529-33. **Carsenti-Etesse H, Doyon F, Desplaces N, Gagey O, Tancrede C, Pradier C, Dunais B, Dellamonica P. Epidemiology of bacterial infection during management of open leg fractures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;18:315-23. Cover the wounds quickly
Common bacteria encountered with open fractures Blunt Trauma, Low Energy GSW Staph, Strept Farm Wounds Clostridia Fresh Water Pseudomonas, Aeromonas Sea Water Aeromonas, Vibrios War Wounds, High Energy GSW Gram Negative
What systemic antibiotic? 1st Gen Ceph Gent PCN Grade 1  Grade 2  +/- Grade 3   +/- Farm/War Wounds    (Gustilo, et al; JBJS 72A 1990)
Antibiotic comparisons • No difference btwn clindamycin and cefazolin* • Patzakis et al. ** – For type 1&2, cipro = cefamandole+gentamicin – For type 3, cipro worse (31% vs 7.7% infection) • Cipro and other fluoroquinolones inhibit osteoblast activity and fracture healing*** *Benson DR, Riggins RS, Lawrence RM, Hoeprich PD, Huston AC, Harrison JA. Treatment of open fractures: a prospective study. J Trauma. 1983;23:25-30. **Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, Shepherd L, Singer G, Ressler R, Harvey F, Holtom P. Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:529-33. ***Holtom PD, Pavkovic SA, Bravos PD, Patzakis MJ, Shepherd LE, Frenkel B. Inhibitory effects of the quinolone antibiotics trovafloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin on osteoblastic cells in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:721-7. ***Huddleston PM, Steckelberg JM, Hanssen AD, Rouse MS, Bolander ME, Patel R. Ciprofloxacin inhibition of experimental fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:161-73.
When and for how long? • Start abx as soon as possible* – Less than 3 hours  4.7 % infection rate – Greater than 3 hours  7.4% • No difference btwn 1 and 5 days of post op abx treatment** • Mass Gen recommended treatment:*** – Cefazolin Q 8 until 24 hours after wound closed – Gentamicin or levofloxacin added for type 3 *Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;243:36-40. **Dellinger EP, Caplan ES, Weaver LD, Wertz MJ, Brumback R, Burgess A, Poka A, Benirschke SK, Lennard S, Lou MA. Duration of preventive antibiotic administration for open extremity fractures. Arch Surg. 1988;123:333-9. ***Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48.
Local antibiotic therapy • High abx conc within the wound and low systemic conc – Reduces risk of systemic side effect • Vancomycin or aminoglycosides – Heat stable – Available in powder form – Active against suspected pathogens Eckman JB Jr, Henry SL, Mangino PD, Seligson D. Wound and serum levels of tobramycin with the prophylactic use of tobramycin- impregnated polymethylmethacrylate beads in compound fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 237:213-5.
Antibiotics - locally • Prevents secondary contamination by nocosomial pathogens • Useful adjunct to systemic abx • Potential for abx impregnated bone graft, bone graft substitute, and abx coated IMN Ostermann PA, Seligson D, Henry SL: Local antibiotic therapy for severe open fractures. A review of 1085 consecutive cases; J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Jan;77(1):93-7. Antibiotic Infection Rate IV Abx 12% IV Abx + local aminoglycoside impregnated PMMA beads 3.7%
Antibiotic Beads • Pros – Very high levels of antibiotics locally – Dead space management • Cons – Requires removal – Limited to heat stable antibiotics – Increased drainage from wound
Goals of treatment • 1. preserve life • 2. preserve limb • 3. preserve function • Also…. – Prevent infection – Fracture stabilization – Soft tissue coverage
http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
Stages of care for open fractures
Initial assessment & management • ABC’s • Assess entire patient • Careful PE, neurovasc • Abx and tetanus • Local irrigation 1-2 liters Lee J. Efficacy of cultures in the management of open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:71-5.
Initial assessment & management • Sterile compressive dressings • Realign fracture and splint • Do not culture wound in the ED* – 8% of bugs grown caused deep infection – cultures were of no value and not to be done • Recheck pulse, motor and sensation Lee J. Efficacy of cultures in the management of open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:71-5.
Primary surgery • Objectives of initial surgical management – Preservation of life and limb – Wound debridement – Definitive injury assessment – Fracture stabilization Stages of open fracture management in the OR
Surgical emergency! • 1898 Friedrich guinea pigs – Take to the OR within 6-8 hours* • 1973 Robson: bacteria multiply in contaminated wounds ** – 105 organisms/gram of tissue is the infection threshold – Reached at 5.17 hours • 1995 Kindsfater et al: – 47 G2/3 fxs at 4.8 months out…. • Less than 5 hrs  7% infection • Greater than 5 hrs  38% infection – However G3 fxs were treated later *Friedrich PL. Die aseptische Versorgung frischer Wundern. Arch Klin Chir. 1898;57:288-310. **Robson MC, Duke WF, Krizek TJ. Rapid bacterial screening in the treatment of civilian wounds. J Surg Res. 1973;14:426-30.
Or not?.... Calling the “6 hour rule” into question • 1993 Bednar and Parikh…. No significant difference * – 3.4% vs 9%; 82 open femoral/tibial fxs • 2004 Ashford et al…. No significant difference ** – 11% vs 17%; pts from the austrailian outback • 2004 Spencer et al.... No significant difference *** – 10.1% vs 10.9%; 142 open long bone fxs from UK • 2003 Pollack and the LEAP investigators…. No correlation**** – 315 open long bone fxs • 2005 Skaggs et al….No significant difference ***** – children with all types of open fractures; 554 open fractures *Bednar DA, Parikh J. Effect of time delay from injury to primary management on the incidence of deep infection after open fractures of the lower extremities caused by blunt trauma in adults. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7:532-5. **Ashford RU, Mehta JA, Cripps R. Delayed presentation is no barrier to satisfactory outcome in the management of open tibial fractures. Injury. 2004;35:411-6. ***Spencer J, Smith A, Woods D. The effect of time delay on infection in open long-bone fractures: a 5-year prospective audit from a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86:108-12. ****Pollack AN, Castillo RC, Jones AL, Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, and the LEAP Study Group. Time to definitive treatment significantly influences incidence of infection after open high-energy lower-extremity trauma. Read at the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association; 2003 Oct 9-11; Salt Lake City, UT. *****Skaggs DL, Friend L, Alman B, Chambers HG, Schmitz M, Leake B, Kay RM, Flynn JM. “The Effect of Surgical Delay on Acute Infection Following 554 Open Fractures in Children.” JBJS-A 2005. 87:8-12 No significant difference before or after 6 hours!!!
Do we even need to do operative debridement? • Orcutt et al... No significant difference, BUT…* – 50 type 1 &2 open fractures – less infection in nonoperative group (3% vs 6%) – Less delayed union in nonop group (10% vs 16%) • Yang et al….0% infections ** – 91 type 1 open fractures treated without I&D *Orcutt S, Kilgus D, Ziner D. The treatment of low-grade open fractures without operative debridement. Read at the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association; 1988 Oct 28; Dallas, TX. **Yang EC, Eisler J. “Treatment of Isolated Type 1 Open Fractures: Is Emergent Operative Debridement Necessary?” Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003. 410: 289-294. Do we even need to debride low grade open fractures?
However, after review of all literature….…. • Okike et al. states…. • “Thorough operative debridement is the standard of care for all open fractures.” • “Even if the benefits of formal I&D were insignificant for low grade fractures, operative debridement is still required for proper wound classification.” • “Open fractures graded on the basis of superficial characteristics are often misclassified.” • Huge risk not to explore and debride! Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48.
http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
URGENTLY debride, not EMERGENTLY • Time to OR is probably less important than:* – Adequacy of debridement – Time to soft tissue coverage • Timing depends on….** – Is patient stable? – Is the OR prepared? – Is appropriate assistance available? • Ortho trained scrub techs, assistant surgeons, xray techs, and other OR staff • 2005 Skaggs et al:*** – If after 10pm, keep until the morning! Or at least within 24 hours. – Unless…. • neurovasc compromise • horrible soft tissue contamination • compartment syndrome *Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48. **Werner CM, Pierpont Y, Pollak AN: The urgency of surgical débridement in the management of open fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Jul;16(7):369-75. ***Stewart DJ, Kay RM, Skaggs DL: Open Fractures in Children. Principles of Evaluation and Management. JBJS-A. 2005;87:2784-2798. Within 24 hours Within 6 hours
I&D in the OR • Trauma scrub – Soap and saline to remove gross debris • “Zone of injury” – Skin wound is the window through which the true wound communicates with the exterior • Extend the traumatic wound – Excise margins – Resect muscle and skin to healthy tissue • color, consistency, capacity to bleed and contractility
I&D in the OR • Bone ends are exposed and debrided • Irrigate • Serial debridements? – If needed, 2nd or 3rd debridement after 24- 48 hours should be planned
The Irrigation • Amount – No good data, copious is better – Animal studies show improved removal of particulate matter and bacteria but effect plateaus – Irrigation bags typically contain 3 L of fluid – Anglen recommends:* • 3L (one bag) for type 1 • 6L (two bags) for type 2 • 9L (three bags) for type 3 *Anglen JO. “Wound Irrigation in Musculoskeletal Injury.” JAAOS 2001. 9: 219-226.
How to deliver the irrigation? (what animal studies show) • Bulb Syringe vs Pulsatile Lavage – Pulsatile lavage • Detrimental for early bone healing – this is no longer present at 2 wks* • More soft tissue destruction** • More effective in removing particulate matter and bacteria*** *Dirschl DR, Duff GP, Dahners LE, Edin M, Rahn BA, Miclau T. “High Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Irrigation of Intraarticular Fractures: Effects on Fracture Healing.” JOT 1998. 12(7): 460-463. **Boyd JI, Wongworawat MD. “High-Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Causes Soft Tissue Damage.” CORR 2004. 427: 13-17 ***Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, Lachowski RJ, Shaughnessy SG. “High and Low Pressure Pulsatile Lavage of Contaminated Tibial Fractures: An in vitro Study of Bacterial Adherence and Bone Damage.” JOT 1999. 13: 526-533.
How to deliver the irrigation? (what animal studies show) • High or low pressure? – Higher pressure • Better bone cleaning • Worse soft tissue cleaning • Slows bone healing *Dirschl DR, Duff GP, Dahners LE, Edin M, Rahn BA, Miclau T. “High Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Irrigation of Intraarticular Fractures: Effects on Fracture Healing.” JOT 1998. 12(7): 460-463. **Boyd JI, Wongworawat MD. “High-Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Causes Soft Tissue Damage.” CORR 2004. 427: 13-17 ***Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, Lachowski RJ, Shaughnessy SG. “High and Low Pressure Pulsatile Lavage of Contaminated Tibial Fractures: An in vitro Study of Bacterial Adherence and Bone Damage.” JOT 1999. 13: 526-533.
Antibiotics in the irrigation? • Antibiotics (bacitracin and/or neomycin) – Mixed results, controversial – Costly • bacitracin alone around $500/washout – ?? Causing resistance – Wound healing problems? – Few reported cases of anaphylaxis – Anglen: “No proven value in the care of open fracture wounds…some risk, albeit small.” No proven benefit! *Anglen JO. “Wound Irrigation in Musculoskeletal Injury.” JAAOS 2001. 9: 219-226.
Soaps in the irrigation? • Surfactants (i.e. Soaps) – Less bacteria adhesion – Emulsify and remove debris – No significant difference in infection or bone healing compared to bacitracin solution, but more wound healing problems in bacitracin group Anglen JO. “Comparison of Soap and Antibiotic Solutions for Irrigation of Lower-Limb Open Fracture Wounds: A Prospective, Randomized Study.” JBJS-A 2005. 87(7):1415-1422.
Level 4 evidence based recommendations • 1st washout, highly contaminated  Soap solution • Repeat washout of clean wounds  Saline • Infected wounds  Soap, then antibiotic *Anglen JO. “Wound Irrigation in Musculoskeletal Injury.” JAAOS 2001. 9: 219-226.
Wound closure after contaminated fracture • Timing and technique is controversial OPEN WOUND should be left OPEN! – Prevents anaerobic conditions in wound: Clostridium – Facilitates drainage – Allows repeat debridement Zalavras CG, Patzakis MJ:Open fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003 May-Jun;11(3):212-9. Dubunked!
To close or not to close? • Recently, renewed interest in primary closure • Collinge, OTA 2004 • Moola, OTA 2005 • Russell, OTA 2005 • DeLong, J Trauma 2004/ • Bosse, JAAOS 2002 – Improved abx management – Better stabilization – Less morbidity – Shorter hospital stay, lower cost – NO increase in wound infection • These wounds are at higher risk of clostridia perfringens if they do get infected. • 1999 Delong et al: 119 open fxs – No significant difference • delayed/nonunion and infection rates btwn immediate and delayed closure – Immediate closure is a “viable option” DeLong WG Jr, Born CT, Wei SY, Petrik ME, Ponzio R, Schwab CW: Aggressive treatment of 119 open fracture wounds. J Trauma. 1999 Jun;46(6):1049-54. infection rate 7% Overall delayed/nonunion rate 16% Grade Percent of primary closures 1 88% 2 86% 3a 75% 3b 33% 3c 0%
Contraindications to primary closure • Inadequate debridement • Gross contamination • Farm related or freshwater immersion injuries • Delay in treatment >12 hours • Delay in giving abx • Compromised host or tissue viability
When to cover the wound? • ASAP after wound adequately debrided – Only 18% of infections are caused by the same organism isolated in initial perioperative culture* • Suggests hospital acquired etiology of infection • “Fix and Flap”** – For Type IIIB & IIIC open tibia fractures – Early if not immediate flap coverage •Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, et al. “Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds.” JOT 2000. 14: 529-533. **Gopal S, Majumder S, Batchelor A, Knight S, De Boer P, Smith RM. “Fix and flap: the radical orthopaedic and plastic treatment of severe open fractures of the tibia.” JBJS-B 2000. 82(7): 959 – 966. Timing of flap placement Infection rate < 72 hours 6% > 72 hours 30%
Dressings • Temporary closures – rubber bands • Wet to dry dressings • Semi-permeable membranes • Antibiotic bead pouch • VAC
VAC • Vacuum assisted wound closure – Recommended for temporary management – Mechanically induced negative pressure in a closed system – Removes fluid from extravascular space – Reduced edema – Improves microcirculation – Enhances proliferation of reparative granulation tissue • Open cell polyurethane foam dressing ensures an even distribution of negative pressure -Webb LX: New techniques in wound management: vacuum-assisted wound closure. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;10(5):303-11. -Dedmond BT, Kortesis B, Punger K, Simpson J, Argenta A, Kulp B, Morykwas M, Webb L. “The use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Temporary Treatment of Soft Tissue Injuries associated with High Energy Open Tibial Shaft Fractures.” JOT. 2007
Types of fracture stabilization • Splint – Good option if operative fixation not required • Internal fixation – Wound is clean and soft tissue coverage available • External fixation – Dirty wounds or extensive soft tissue injury
Fracture stabilization • Gustilo type 1 injury can be treated the same way as a comparable closed fracture • Most cases involve surgical fixation • Outcome is similar to closed counterparts
Fracture stabilization • Gustilo type 2&3 usually displaced and unstable – dictate surgical fixation • Restore length, alignment, rotation and provide stability – ideal environment for soft tissue healing and reduces wound infection – reduces dead space and hematoma volume • Inflammatory response dampened • Exudates and edema is reduced • Tissue revascularization is encouraged
When to use plates? • Open diaphyseal fractures of arm & forearm • Open diaphyseal fractures lower extremity – NOT recommended – Open tibial shaft plating assoc high infection rate* • Open periarticular fractures – Treatment of choice in both upper and lower extremities Bach AW, Hansen ST Jr.: Plates versus external fixation in severe open tibial shaft fractures. A randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr;(241):89-94.
When to use IM nails? • Treatment of choice for most diaphyseal fractures of the lower extremity • Inserted without disrupting the already injured soft tissue envelope • Preserves the remaining extra osseous blood supply to cortical bone • Malunion is uncommon
To ream or not to ream? • Does reaming cause additional damage to the endosteal blood supply? • Solid IM nails without reaming has a lower risk of infection that tubular nails with a large dead space* • However reamed IM nails are biomechanically stronger and can reliably maintain fracture reduction if statically locked • 2000 Finkemeier et al. – reamed vs unreamed interlocked nails of open tibias – NO statistical difference in outcome and risk of complication** *Melcher GA, Claudi B, Schlegel U, Perren SM, Printzen G, Munzinger J.Influence of type of medullary nail on the development of local infection. An experimental study of solid and slotted nails in rabbits; .J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Nov;76(6):955-9. **Keating JF, O'Brien PJ, Blachut PA, Meek RN, Broekhuyse HM: Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Mar;79(3):334-41. **Finkemeier CG, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, Templeman DC, Varecka TF: A prospective, randomized study of intramedullary nails inserted with and without reaming for the treatment of open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Mar-Apr;14(3):187-93.
When to use external fixation? • Diaphyseal fractures not amenable to IM nails • Ring fixators for periarticular fractures • Temporary joint spanning ex fix is popular for knee, ankle, elbow and wrist • If temporary, plan for conversion to IM nail within 3 weeks
Ex-fix: Weigh the pros and cons! • Historically was definitive treatment • Now, more commonly as temporary fixation • Can be applied almost always and everywhere • Severe soft tissue damage and contamination
Advantages • Easy and quick • Relatively stable fixation • No further damage done • Avoids hardware in the open wound
Disadvantages • Pin track infections • Malalignment • Delayed union • Poor patient compliance
Skin cover and soft tissue reconstruction • Do these early! • 1994 Osterman et al.* – Retrospective 1085 fractures, 115 G2 and 239 G3 • All treated with appropriate IV Abx and I&D – No infection if wounds closed at 7.6 days – Yes infection if wounds closed at 17.9 days *Ostermann PA, Seligson D, Henry SL: Local antibiotic therapy for severe open fractures: A review of 1085 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:93–97. Infection risk increases if wound open > 7 days
Reconstructive ladder: options for wound coverage Primary closure Secondary intention Skin graft Local flap Regional flap Distant flap Free flap Tissue expansion Type 1 open fx Type 3B open fx Type 2/3A open fx
http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
Flap coverage for type 3b
Type 3c, a bad injury! • Devastating damage to bone and soft tissue • Major arterial injuries that require repair • Poor functional outcome • Consensus btwn ortho, vascular and plastics • Salvage is technically possible in most cases • However it is not always the correct choice esp type 3c tibia fractures
We can do both, salvage & amputate. • Vascular surgery can revascularize with bypass graft – Generally before fracture stabilization • Plastics can provide soft tissue coverage • However, in the tibia, the severity to soft tissue envelope and bone may result in infected nonunion • If salvage…. long course of repeated surgical procedures – Painful and psychologically distressing – Functional outcome may be poor and no better than amputation
How to decide, salvage or amputate? • Important factors in decision making:* – General condition of the patient (shock) – Warm ischemia time (>6hours) – Age (>30 years) – Cut to crush ratio (blunt injuries has a large zone of crush) Howe HR Jr, Poole GV Jr, Hansen KJ, Clark T, Plonk GW, Koman LA, Pennell TC: Salvage of lower extremities following combined orthopedic and vascular trauma. A predictive salvage index. Am Surg. 1987 Apr;53(4):205-8.
Gunshot injuries • Energy dissipated at impact = damage severity • High velocity rifles and close range shotguns – Worst, high energy of impact – Huge secondary cavitation – Secondary effects of shattered bone fragments • Bullets lodged in joints should be removed – avoid lead arthropathy and systemic lead poisoning
Low velocity GSW <2000 ft/sec • Low velocity handguns – Less severe, not treated like open fractures – Cavitation is not significant – Secondary missile effects are minimal – Bone fragments rarely stripped of soft tissue attachments and blood supply – Soft tissue injuries not severe and skin wounds are small
Low velocity GSW open fractures • Geisslar et al. * • If neurovascular status normal, do local debridement • NO formal I&D needed • IV Abx • Approach fx fixation as if closed • Dickey et al.** – No abx vs IV Ancef x 3d – 67 low velocity GSW fxs – Not requiring operative fixation – No difference in infection rates *Geisslar ett al, J Ortho Trauma, 4;39-41,1990 **Dickey et al, J Ortho Trauma, 3;6-10,1989 Treat open fractures from low velocity GSW as closed fractures without Abx
Pitfalls and complications • Infection  delayed union, nonunion, malunion and loss of function • Plan ahead to avoid delayed union and nonunion • Predict nonunion in severe injuries with bone loss – Bone grafting usually delayed 6 weeks when soft tissues have soundly healed – Autogenous bone grafting is usual strategy – Fibular transfer, free composite graft or distraction osteogenesis for complex defects – Recombinant human BMP in open tibia fracture reduces risk of delayed union
Advances… • BMPs – 40% decreased infection rate with BMP in type 3 open tibia fractures* • Antibiotic Laden Bone Graft** – Tobramycin-impregnated calcium sulfate pellets with demineralized bone matrix – Animal study: successful in preventing infection *BESTT Study Group, Govender S, Csimma C, Genant H, Valentin-Opran A. “Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 for Treatment of Open Tibial Fractures: A prospective, controlled, randomized study of four hundred and fifty patients.” JBJS-A 2002. 84(12): 2123-2134. **Beardmore AA, Brooks DE, Wenke JC, Thomas DB. “Effectiveness of local antibiotic delivery with an osteoinductive and osteoconductive bone-graft substitute.” JBJS-A 2005. 87(1): 107-112.
Summary A = good evidence (level 1 studies) B = fair evidence (level 2/3 studies) C = poor quality evidence (level 4/5 studies) I = insufficient or conflicting evidence Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48.
Thank you

More Related Content

PPTX
Emergency Orthopaedics EMERGENCIES .pptx
byArmand Al Haraani
 
PPT
openfracture management
bydrsp46
 
PPT
management of open fracture
byDoc Mann
 
PPTX
Open fracture management
byAnil Kumar Prakash
 
PPTX
Controversies in initial management of
bymohdzh00
 
PPTX
Open Fracture
bymeducationdotnet
 
PPTX
Controversies in initial management of
bymohdzh00
 
PDF
Open fractures jaaos
byAnderson David
 
Emergency Orthopaedics EMERGENCIES .pptx
byArmand Al Haraani
 
openfracture management
bydrsp46
 
management of open fracture
byDoc Mann
 
Open fracture management
byAnil Kumar Prakash
 
Controversies in initial management of
bymohdzh00
 
Open Fracture
bymeducationdotnet
 
Controversies in initial management of
bymohdzh00
 
Open fractures jaaos
byAnderson David
 

Similar to management_of_open_fractures.pptx

PPTX
MANAGEMENT OF OPEN FRACTURES FINAL.pptx by Marian Afful-Eshun
bymarianaffuleshun2
 
PPT
Open fractures
bymostafa hegazy
 
PPTX
EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF OPEN FRACTURE
byBipulBorthakur
 
PPTX
Open Fracture cme by medical officer form
byMuhdIdrisAizatAdam
 
PPTX
Open fracture
byRajesh Meena
 
PPTX
Open fractures
byMohamed Abulsoud
 
PDF
c60076df263dc8684a6ac74307b1f94a.pdf
byalibadakhshan1
 
PPTX
Open fractures ppt
byprashanth nagaraj
 
PPTX
OPEN FRACTURE MANAGEMENT -dikompresi.pptx
bydevitafaradiladevi
 
PPTX
Management of open fracture true ppt
byYoua Xiong
 
PDF
Management of open fracture
byYoua Xiong
 
PPTX
Open fracture
byMayedul Hasan
 
PPTX
4.Open Fracture management 2..-1 (1).pptx
byyekatitintern36
 
PPTX
Open Fracture management 2-.........1.pptx
byAhmed Kitaw
 
PPTX
Open Fractures.pptx
byAmerManzoorPak
 
PPTX
principlesofmanagementofopenfracture-200603225250-1.pptx
byIgweSolomon4
 
PPTX
[TRAUMATOLOGY] SOFT TISSUE MANAGEMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION IN ORTHOPAEDICS EMER...
byBethwell Radiro
 
PDF
KIRU OPEN FRACTURES from Bapras guideline
byKirushanthSathiyanat1
 
PPTX
Advanced Treatment of Open Fractures by Habeeb Almajidi.pptx
byبديع الزمان
 
PPTX
OPEN FRACTURES.pptx
byStevenOnyango5
 
MANAGEMENT OF OPEN FRACTURES FINAL.pptx by Marian Afful-Eshun
bymarianaffuleshun2
 
Open fractures
bymostafa hegazy
 
EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF OPEN FRACTURE
byBipulBorthakur
 
Open Fracture cme by medical officer form
byMuhdIdrisAizatAdam
 
Open fracture
byRajesh Meena
 
Open fractures
byMohamed Abulsoud
 
c60076df263dc8684a6ac74307b1f94a.pdf
byalibadakhshan1
 
Open fractures ppt
byprashanth nagaraj
 
OPEN FRACTURE MANAGEMENT -dikompresi.pptx
bydevitafaradiladevi
 
Management of open fracture true ppt
byYoua Xiong
 
Management of open fracture
byYoua Xiong
 
Open fracture
byMayedul Hasan
 
4.Open Fracture management 2..-1 (1).pptx
byyekatitintern36
 
Open Fracture management 2-.........1.pptx
byAhmed Kitaw
 
Open Fractures.pptx
byAmerManzoorPak
 
principlesofmanagementofopenfracture-200603225250-1.pptx
byIgweSolomon4
 
[TRAUMATOLOGY] SOFT TISSUE MANAGEMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION IN ORTHOPAEDICS EMER...
byBethwell Radiro
 
KIRU OPEN FRACTURES from Bapras guideline
byKirushanthSathiyanat1
 
Advanced Treatment of Open Fractures by Habeeb Almajidi.pptx
byبديع الزمان
 
OPEN FRACTURES.pptx
byStevenOnyango5
 

Recently uploaded

PPTX
Lecture on “Conservative Management of PPH Vs Caesarean Hysterectomy” at 54th...
byNiranjan Chavan
 
PDF
Hip Joint -Prof.Dr.N.Mugunthan. KMMC Medical College.pdf
byKanyakumari Medical Mission Research Center, Muttom
 
PDF
A BRIEF STUDY ON MENINGITIS WITH HOMOEOPATHIC APPROACH
bysadanandarya1
 
PPTX
Imaging approach to Intraventricular tumors
byDr. Aryan (Anish Dhakal)
 
PDF
COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate – Educational Awareness Purpose
bySimanchala Sarab
 
PPTX
Anatomy of respiratory system in Pediatrics View.pptx
bydoshiharsh814
 
PPTX
Unit- II (Bioavaliability & Bioequivalence).pptx
byUditiHanda
 
PPTX
Anatomy of the head and neck, neck lecture -1
byKhalid Musa
 
PPTX
CARDIAC PHYSIOLOGY .pptx. Postgraduate level
byInamullah Sk
 
PPT
anatomy of CLAVICAL bone with muscular landmarks.ppt
byAmeeraAamar
 
PPTX
Artificial_Insemination_Presentation.pptx
byYIHENEW CHALLIE LIYEW
 
PPTX
STROKE its types Pharmacological and non pharmacological management
byfartalesamruddhi
 
PPTX
Pain Pathway, Sensitization & Classification of Pain: A Mechanism-Based Clini...
byDaradia: The Pain Clinic
 
PPTX
REGURGITANT VHD BY TAMRAT. R3 SEMINAR.pptx
byTamratAsme
 
PPT
Pathways to Personalized Remission in CLL: Leveraging Targeted Standards & Ne...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
PPTX
PE & Health 8 Quarter 3 Weeks 1-2 by HC.pptx
byDenninzKhayAbante
 
PDF
Ayurvedic Cosmetology: A Hands-On Training in Skin & Hair Care
byDrAmruthaSajeevan
 
PPTX
DOSHA GATI as per ayurveda(Movement and spread of dosha in body).pptx
byDr. Natisha Sharma
 
PPTX
intracanal medicaments and in endodontics
byvarunrajarn
 
PPTX
CRITICAL APPRAISAL_.pptx for practical pharmacology
bySAMYUKTHAKANDULA
 
Lecture on “Conservative Management of PPH Vs Caesarean Hysterectomy” at 54th...
byNiranjan Chavan
 
Hip Joint -Prof.Dr.N.Mugunthan. KMMC Medical College.pdf
byKanyakumari Medical Mission Research Center, Muttom
 
A BRIEF STUDY ON MENINGITIS WITH HOMOEOPATHIC APPROACH
bysadanandarya1
 
Imaging approach to Intraventricular tumors
byDr. Aryan (Anish Dhakal)
 
COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate – Educational Awareness Purpose
bySimanchala Sarab
 
Anatomy of respiratory system in Pediatrics View.pptx
bydoshiharsh814
 
Unit- II (Bioavaliability & Bioequivalence).pptx
byUditiHanda
 
Anatomy of the head and neck, neck lecture -1
byKhalid Musa
 
CARDIAC PHYSIOLOGY .pptx. Postgraduate level
byInamullah Sk
 
anatomy of CLAVICAL bone with muscular landmarks.ppt
byAmeeraAamar
 
Artificial_Insemination_Presentation.pptx
byYIHENEW CHALLIE LIYEW
 
STROKE its types Pharmacological and non pharmacological management
byfartalesamruddhi
 
Pain Pathway, Sensitization & Classification of Pain: A Mechanism-Based Clini...
byDaradia: The Pain Clinic
 
REGURGITANT VHD BY TAMRAT. R3 SEMINAR.pptx
byTamratAsme
 
Pathways to Personalized Remission in CLL: Leveraging Targeted Standards & Ne...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
PE & Health 8 Quarter 3 Weeks 1-2 by HC.pptx
byDenninzKhayAbante
 
Ayurvedic Cosmetology: A Hands-On Training in Skin & Hair Care
byDrAmruthaSajeevan
 
DOSHA GATI as per ayurveda(Movement and spread of dosha in body).pptx
byDr. Natisha Sharma
 
intracanal medicaments and in endodontics
byvarunrajarn
 
CRITICAL APPRAISAL_.pptx for practical pharmacology
bySAMYUKTHAKANDULA
 

management_of_open_fractures.pptx

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Definition • Break inthe skin and underlying soft tissue leading directly into or communicating with the fracture and its hematoma
  • 3.
    • Last century,high mortality with open fractures of long bones • Early amputation in order to prevent death • WWI, mortality of open femur fractures > 70% • 1939 Trueta “closed treatment of war fractures” – Included open wound treatment and then enclosure of the extremity in a cast – “Greatest danger of infection lay in muscle, not bone” Trueta J: "Closed" treatment of war fractures, Lacet 1939;1:1452-1455 History
  • 4.
    • 1943 PCNon the battlefield quickly reduced rate of wound sepsis • Delayed closure of wounds • Hampton: closure btwn 4th and 7th day • Larger defects continued to be left open to heal by secondary intention Hampton OP Jr: Basic principles in management of open fractures; JAMA 1955; 159:417-419 History
  • 5.
    • Advances shiftedthe focus – Preservation of life and limb  preservation of function and prevention of complications • However, amputation rates still exceed 50% in the most severe open tibial fractures assoc with vascular injury* Lange RH, Bach AW, Hansen ST et al: Open tibial fractures with associated vascular injuries: prognosis for limb salvage. J Trauma; 25(3):203- 208 History
  • 6.
    Epidemiology • 3% ofall limb fractures • 21.3 per 100,000 per year
  • 8.
  • 9.
    Open fracture classification •Allows comparison of results • Provides guidelines on prognosis and treatment – Fracture healing, infection and amputation rate correlate with the degree of soft tissue injury • Gustilo upgraded to Gustilo and Anderson • AO open fracture classification • Host classification of open fractures
  • 10.
    Gustilo and AndersonClassification • Model is tibia, however applied to all types of open fractures • Emphasis on wound size – Crush injury assoc with small wounds – Sharp injury assoc with large wounds • Better to emphasize – Degree of soft tissue injury – Degree of contamination
  • 11.
    TYPE I OPENFRACTURE
  • 12.
    Type 1 OpenFractures • Wound less than 1 cm, • Inside-out injury • Clean wound • Minimal soft tissue damage • No significant periosteal stripping http://www.unboundedmedicine.com/2005/11/08/open-fractures-classification-and-its-clinical-manifestations-3/
  • 13.
    TYPE II OPENFRACTURE
  • 14.
    Type 2 OpenFractures • Moderate soft tissue damage • Outside-in • Higher energy • Some necrotic muscle • Some periosteal stripping
  • 15.
  • 16.
    Type 3a OpenFractures • High energy • Outside-in • Extensive muscle devitalization • Bone coverage with existing soft tissue
  • 17.
  • 18.
    Type 3b OpenFractures • High energy • Outside in • Extensive muscle devitalization • Requires a flap for bone coverage and soft tissue closure • Periosteal stripping
  • 19.
  • 20.
    Type 3c OpenFractures • High energy • Increased risk of amputation and infection • Any grade 3 with major vascular injury requiring repair
  • 21.
    Why use thisclassification? • Grades of soft tissue injury correlates with infection and fracture healing Grade 1 2 3A 3B 3C Infection Rates 0-2% 2-7% 10-25% 10-50% 25-50% Fracture Healing (weeks) 21-28 28-28 30-35 30-35 Amputation Rate 50%
  • 22.
    Gustilo and Anderson Bowenand Widmaier* • 2005 Host classification predicts infection after open fracture – Gustilo and Anderson classification and the number of comorbidities predict infection risk – 174 patients with open fractures of long bones – Sorted into three classes based on 14 immunocompromising factors • Age>80, current nicotine use, DM, malignancy, pulmonary insufficiency, systemic immunodeficiency, etc Bowen TR, Widmaier JC. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;433:205-11.
  • 23.
    What they found… •Patients with any compromising risk factor has increased risk of infection • May benefit from additional therapies that decrease the risk of infection. Bowen TR, Widmaier JC. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;433:205-11. Class Compromising factors Infection rates A 0 4% B 1-2 15% C 3 or more 31%
  • 24.
    Gustilo Classification: a simpleand useful tool, but is it accurate? • 1994 Brumback et al. • 125 randomized open fractures • 245 surgeons of various levels of training • 12 cases of open tibia fractures, videos used • Interobserver agreement poor – Range 42-94% for each fracture • Ortho attendings - 59% agreement • Ortho Trauma Fellowship trained attendings - 66% agreement Brumback RJ, Jones AL (1994) Interobserver agreement in the classification of open fractures of the tibia. The results of a survey of two hundred and forty-five orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone and Joint Am; 76(8):1162–1166.
  • 26.
    So………. • Fracture typeshould not be classified in the ER • Most reliably done in the OR at the completion of primary wound care and debridement
  • 27.
  • 28.
    Radiological Examination • Usually,only AP and lateral radiographs are required – They should include adjacent joints and any associated injuries. • There are a number of features that the surgeon should look for when examining the radiographs http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
  • 29.
  • 30.
    Radiological Examination • MRIand CT scans are rarely required in the acute situation but may be helpful in open pelvic, intra-articular, carpal, and tarsal fractures. • Angiography may be required in Gustilo IIIb or IIIc fractures. • In the polytraumatized patient, the surgeon must decide if a delay for further imaging is appropriate. http://www.lww.com/static/docs/product/samplechapters/978-0-7817-5096-7_Chapter%204.pdf
  • 31.
    Microbiology • Most acuteinfections are caused by pathogens acquired in the hospital • 1976 Gustilo and Anderson – most infections in their study of 326 open fxs developed secondarily • When left open for >2wks, wounds were prone to nocosomial contaminants such as Pseudomonas and other GN bacteria • Currently most open fracture infections are caused by GNR and GP staph Gustilo RB, Anderson JT: Prevention of Infection in the Treatment of One Thousand and Twenty-five Open Fractures of Long Bones; JBJS, 58(4):453-458, June 1976
  • 32.
    Nocosomial infection?!!!! • Only18% of infections were caused by the same organism initially isolated in the perioperative cultures* • Carsenti-Etesse et al. 1999 – 92% of open fracture infections were caused by bacteria acquired while the patient was in the hospital** *Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J, Moore TM: Considerations in reducing the infection rate in open tibial fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Sep;(178):36-41. *Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, Shepherd L, Singer G, Ressler R, Harvey F, Holtom P: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combo antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Nov;14(8):529-33. **Carsenti-Etesse H, Doyon F, Desplaces N, Gagey O, Tancrede C, Pradier C, Dunais B, Dellamonica P. Epidemiology of bacterial infection during management of open leg fractures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;18:315-23. Cover the wounds quickly
  • 33.
    Common bacteria encounteredwith open fractures Blunt Trauma, Low Energy GSW Staph, Strept Farm Wounds Clostridia Fresh Water Pseudomonas, Aeromonas Sea Water Aeromonas, Vibrios War Wounds, High Energy GSW Gram Negative
  • 34.
    What systemic antibiotic? 1stGen Ceph Gent PCN Grade 1  Grade 2  +/- Grade 3   +/- Farm/War Wounds    (Gustilo, et al; JBJS 72A 1990)
  • 35.
    Antibiotic comparisons • Nodifference btwn clindamycin and cefazolin* • Patzakis et al. ** – For type 1&2, cipro = cefamandole+gentamicin – For type 3, cipro worse (31% vs 7.7% infection) • Cipro and other fluoroquinolones inhibit osteoblast activity and fracture healing*** *Benson DR, Riggins RS, Lawrence RM, Hoeprich PD, Huston AC, Harrison JA. Treatment of open fractures: a prospective study. J Trauma. 1983;23:25-30. **Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, Shepherd L, Singer G, Ressler R, Harvey F, Holtom P. Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:529-33. ***Holtom PD, Pavkovic SA, Bravos PD, Patzakis MJ, Shepherd LE, Frenkel B. Inhibitory effects of the quinolone antibiotics trovafloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin on osteoblastic cells in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:721-7. ***Huddleston PM, Steckelberg JM, Hanssen AD, Rouse MS, Bolander ME, Patel R. Ciprofloxacin inhibition of experimental fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:161-73.
  • 36.
    When and forhow long? • Start abx as soon as possible* – Less than 3 hours  4.7 % infection rate – Greater than 3 hours  7.4% • No difference btwn 1 and 5 days of post op abx treatment** • Mass Gen recommended treatment:*** – Cefazolin Q 8 until 24 hours after wound closed – Gentamicin or levofloxacin added for type 3 *Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;243:36-40. **Dellinger EP, Caplan ES, Weaver LD, Wertz MJ, Brumback R, Burgess A, Poka A, Benirschke SK, Lennard S, Lou MA. Duration of preventive antibiotic administration for open extremity fractures. Arch Surg. 1988;123:333-9. ***Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48.
  • 37.
    Local antibiotic therapy •High abx conc within the wound and low systemic conc – Reduces risk of systemic side effect • Vancomycin or aminoglycosides – Heat stable – Available in powder form – Active against suspected pathogens Eckman JB Jr, Henry SL, Mangino PD, Seligson D. Wound and serum levels of tobramycin with the prophylactic use of tobramycin- impregnated polymethylmethacrylate beads in compound fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 237:213-5.
  • 38.
    Antibiotics - locally •Prevents secondary contamination by nocosomial pathogens • Useful adjunct to systemic abx • Potential for abx impregnated bone graft, bone graft substitute, and abx coated IMN Ostermann PA, Seligson D, Henry SL: Local antibiotic therapy for severe open fractures. A review of 1085 consecutive cases; J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Jan;77(1):93-7. Antibiotic Infection Rate IV Abx 12% IV Abx + local aminoglycoside impregnated PMMA beads 3.7%
  • 39.
    Antibiotic Beads • Pros –Very high levels of antibiotics locally – Dead space management • Cons – Requires removal – Limited to heat stable antibiotics – Increased drainage from wound
  • 40.
    Goals of treatment •1. preserve life • 2. preserve limb • 3. preserve function • Also…. – Prevent infection – Fracture stabilization – Soft tissue coverage
  • 41.
  • 42.
    Stages of carefor open fractures
  • 43.
    Initial assessment &management • ABC’s • Assess entire patient • Careful PE, neurovasc • Abx and tetanus • Local irrigation 1-2 liters Lee J. Efficacy of cultures in the management of open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:71-5.
  • 44.
    Initial assessment &management • Sterile compressive dressings • Realign fracture and splint • Do not culture wound in the ED* – 8% of bugs grown caused deep infection – cultures were of no value and not to be done • Recheck pulse, motor and sensation Lee J. Efficacy of cultures in the management of open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:71-5.
  • 45.
    Primary surgery • Objectivesof initial surgical management – Preservation of life and limb – Wound debridement – Definitive injury assessment – Fracture stabilization Stages of open fracture management in the OR
  • 46.
    Surgical emergency! • 1898Friedrich guinea pigs – Take to the OR within 6-8 hours* • 1973 Robson: bacteria multiply in contaminated wounds ** – 105 organisms/gram of tissue is the infection threshold – Reached at 5.17 hours • 1995 Kindsfater et al: – 47 G2/3 fxs at 4.8 months out…. • Less than 5 hrs  7% infection • Greater than 5 hrs  38% infection – However G3 fxs were treated later *Friedrich PL. Die aseptische Versorgung frischer Wundern. Arch Klin Chir. 1898;57:288-310. **Robson MC, Duke WF, Krizek TJ. Rapid bacterial screening in the treatment of civilian wounds. J Surg Res. 1973;14:426-30.
  • 47.
    Or not?.... Calling the“6 hour rule” into question • 1993 Bednar and Parikh…. No significant difference * – 3.4% vs 9%; 82 open femoral/tibial fxs • 2004 Ashford et al…. No significant difference ** – 11% vs 17%; pts from the austrailian outback • 2004 Spencer et al.... No significant difference *** – 10.1% vs 10.9%; 142 open long bone fxs from UK • 2003 Pollack and the LEAP investigators…. No correlation**** – 315 open long bone fxs • 2005 Skaggs et al….No significant difference ***** – children with all types of open fractures; 554 open fractures *Bednar DA, Parikh J. Effect of time delay from injury to primary management on the incidence of deep infection after open fractures of the lower extremities caused by blunt trauma in adults. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7:532-5. **Ashford RU, Mehta JA, Cripps R. Delayed presentation is no barrier to satisfactory outcome in the management of open tibial fractures. Injury. 2004;35:411-6. ***Spencer J, Smith A, Woods D. The effect of time delay on infection in open long-bone fractures: a 5-year prospective audit from a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86:108-12. ****Pollack AN, Castillo RC, Jones AL, Bosse MJ, MacKenzie EJ, and the LEAP Study Group. Time to definitive treatment significantly influences incidence of infection after open high-energy lower-extremity trauma. Read at the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association; 2003 Oct 9-11; Salt Lake City, UT. *****Skaggs DL, Friend L, Alman B, Chambers HG, Schmitz M, Leake B, Kay RM, Flynn JM. “The Effect of Surgical Delay on Acute Infection Following 554 Open Fractures in Children.” JBJS-A 2005. 87:8-12 No significant difference before or after 6 hours!!!
  • 48.
    Do we evenneed to do operative debridement? • Orcutt et al... No significant difference, BUT…* – 50 type 1 &2 open fractures – less infection in nonoperative group (3% vs 6%) – Less delayed union in nonop group (10% vs 16%) • Yang et al….0% infections ** – 91 type 1 open fractures treated without I&D *Orcutt S, Kilgus D, Ziner D. The treatment of low-grade open fractures without operative debridement. Read at the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association; 1988 Oct 28; Dallas, TX. **Yang EC, Eisler J. “Treatment of Isolated Type 1 Open Fractures: Is Emergent Operative Debridement Necessary?” Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003. 410: 289-294. Do we even need to debride low grade open fractures?
  • 49.
    However, after reviewof all literature….…. • Okike et al. states…. • “Thorough operative debridement is the standard of care for all open fractures.” • “Even if the benefits of formal I&D were insignificant for low grade fractures, operative debridement is still required for proper wound classification.” • “Open fractures graded on the basis of superficial characteristics are often misclassified.” • Huge risk not to explore and debride! Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48.
  • 50.
  • 51.
    URGENTLY debride, notEMERGENTLY • Time to OR is probably less important than:* – Adequacy of debridement – Time to soft tissue coverage • Timing depends on….** – Is patient stable? – Is the OR prepared? – Is appropriate assistance available? • Ortho trained scrub techs, assistant surgeons, xray techs, and other OR staff • 2005 Skaggs et al:*** – If after 10pm, keep until the morning! Or at least within 24 hours. – Unless…. • neurovasc compromise • horrible soft tissue contamination • compartment syndrome *Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48. **Werner CM, Pierpont Y, Pollak AN: The urgency of surgical débridement in the management of open fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Jul;16(7):369-75. ***Stewart DJ, Kay RM, Skaggs DL: Open Fractures in Children. Principles of Evaluation and Management. JBJS-A. 2005;87:2784-2798. Within 24 hours Within 6 hours
  • 52.
    I&D in theOR • Trauma scrub – Soap and saline to remove gross debris • “Zone of injury” – Skin wound is the window through which the true wound communicates with the exterior • Extend the traumatic wound – Excise margins – Resect muscle and skin to healthy tissue • color, consistency, capacity to bleed and contractility
  • 53.
    I&D in theOR • Bone ends are exposed and debrided • Irrigate • Serial debridements? – If needed, 2nd or 3rd debridement after 24- 48 hours should be planned
  • 54.
    The Irrigation • Amount –No good data, copious is better – Animal studies show improved removal of particulate matter and bacteria but effect plateaus – Irrigation bags typically contain 3 L of fluid – Anglen recommends:* • 3L (one bag) for type 1 • 6L (two bags) for type 2 • 9L (three bags) for type 3 *Anglen JO. “Wound Irrigation in Musculoskeletal Injury.” JAAOS 2001. 9: 219-226.
  • 55.
    How to deliverthe irrigation? (what animal studies show) • Bulb Syringe vs Pulsatile Lavage – Pulsatile lavage • Detrimental for early bone healing – this is no longer present at 2 wks* • More soft tissue destruction** • More effective in removing particulate matter and bacteria*** *Dirschl DR, Duff GP, Dahners LE, Edin M, Rahn BA, Miclau T. “High Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Irrigation of Intraarticular Fractures: Effects on Fracture Healing.” JOT 1998. 12(7): 460-463. **Boyd JI, Wongworawat MD. “High-Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Causes Soft Tissue Damage.” CORR 2004. 427: 13-17 ***Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, Lachowski RJ, Shaughnessy SG. “High and Low Pressure Pulsatile Lavage of Contaminated Tibial Fractures: An in vitro Study of Bacterial Adherence and Bone Damage.” JOT 1999. 13: 526-533.
  • 56.
    How to deliverthe irrigation? (what animal studies show) • High or low pressure? – Higher pressure • Better bone cleaning • Worse soft tissue cleaning • Slows bone healing *Dirschl DR, Duff GP, Dahners LE, Edin M, Rahn BA, Miclau T. “High Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Irrigation of Intraarticular Fractures: Effects on Fracture Healing.” JOT 1998. 12(7): 460-463. **Boyd JI, Wongworawat MD. “High-Pressure Pulsatile Lavage Causes Soft Tissue Damage.” CORR 2004. 427: 13-17 ***Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, Lachowski RJ, Shaughnessy SG. “High and Low Pressure Pulsatile Lavage of Contaminated Tibial Fractures: An in vitro Study of Bacterial Adherence and Bone Damage.” JOT 1999. 13: 526-533.
  • 57.
    Antibiotics in theirrigation? • Antibiotics (bacitracin and/or neomycin) – Mixed results, controversial – Costly • bacitracin alone around $500/washout – ?? Causing resistance – Wound healing problems? – Few reported cases of anaphylaxis – Anglen: “No proven value in the care of open fracture wounds…some risk, albeit small.” No proven benefit! *Anglen JO. “Wound Irrigation in Musculoskeletal Injury.” JAAOS 2001. 9: 219-226.
  • 58.
    Soaps in theirrigation? • Surfactants (i.e. Soaps) – Less bacteria adhesion – Emulsify and remove debris – No significant difference in infection or bone healing compared to bacitracin solution, but more wound healing problems in bacitracin group Anglen JO. “Comparison of Soap and Antibiotic Solutions for Irrigation of Lower-Limb Open Fracture Wounds: A Prospective, Randomized Study.” JBJS-A 2005. 87(7):1415-1422.
  • 59.
    Level 4 evidencebased recommendations • 1st washout, highly contaminated  Soap solution • Repeat washout of clean wounds  Saline • Infected wounds  Soap, then antibiotic *Anglen JO. “Wound Irrigation in Musculoskeletal Injury.” JAAOS 2001. 9: 219-226.
  • 60.
    Wound closure aftercontaminated fracture • Timing and technique is controversial OPEN WOUND should be left OPEN! – Prevents anaerobic conditions in wound: Clostridium – Facilitates drainage – Allows repeat debridement Zalavras CG, Patzakis MJ:Open fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003 May-Jun;11(3):212-9. Dubunked!
  • 61.
    To close ornot to close? • Recently, renewed interest in primary closure • Collinge, OTA 2004 • Moola, OTA 2005 • Russell, OTA 2005 • DeLong, J Trauma 2004/ • Bosse, JAAOS 2002 – Improved abx management – Better stabilization – Less morbidity – Shorter hospital stay, lower cost – NO increase in wound infection • These wounds are at higher risk of clostridia perfringens if they do get infected. • 1999 Delong et al: 119 open fxs – No significant difference • delayed/nonunion and infection rates btwn immediate and delayed closure – Immediate closure is a “viable option” DeLong WG Jr, Born CT, Wei SY, Petrik ME, Ponzio R, Schwab CW: Aggressive treatment of 119 open fracture wounds. J Trauma. 1999 Jun;46(6):1049-54. infection rate 7% Overall delayed/nonunion rate 16% Grade Percent of primary closures 1 88% 2 86% 3a 75% 3b 33% 3c 0%
  • 62.
    Contraindications to primaryclosure • Inadequate debridement • Gross contamination • Farm related or freshwater immersion injuries • Delay in treatment >12 hours • Delay in giving abx • Compromised host or tissue viability
  • 63.
    When to coverthe wound? • ASAP after wound adequately debrided – Only 18% of infections are caused by the same organism isolated in initial perioperative culture* • Suggests hospital acquired etiology of infection • “Fix and Flap”** – For Type IIIB & IIIC open tibia fractures – Early if not immediate flap coverage •Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, et al. “Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds.” JOT 2000. 14: 529-533. **Gopal S, Majumder S, Batchelor A, Knight S, De Boer P, Smith RM. “Fix and flap: the radical orthopaedic and plastic treatment of severe open fractures of the tibia.” JBJS-B 2000. 82(7): 959 – 966. Timing of flap placement Infection rate < 72 hours 6% > 72 hours 30%
  • 64.
    Dressings • Temporary closures– rubber bands • Wet to dry dressings • Semi-permeable membranes • Antibiotic bead pouch • VAC
  • 65.
    VAC • Vacuum assistedwound closure – Recommended for temporary management – Mechanically induced negative pressure in a closed system – Removes fluid from extravascular space – Reduced edema – Improves microcirculation – Enhances proliferation of reparative granulation tissue • Open cell polyurethane foam dressing ensures an even distribution of negative pressure -Webb LX: New techniques in wound management: vacuum-assisted wound closure. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;10(5):303-11. -Dedmond BT, Kortesis B, Punger K, Simpson J, Argenta A, Kulp B, Morykwas M, Webb L. “The use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Temporary Treatment of Soft Tissue Injuries associated with High Energy Open Tibial Shaft Fractures.” JOT. 2007
  • 66.
    Types of fracturestabilization • Splint – Good option if operative fixation not required • Internal fixation – Wound is clean and soft tissue coverage available • External fixation – Dirty wounds or extensive soft tissue injury
  • 67.
    Fracture stabilization • Gustilotype 1 injury can be treated the same way as a comparable closed fracture • Most cases involve surgical fixation • Outcome is similar to closed counterparts
  • 68.
    Fracture stabilization • Gustilotype 2&3 usually displaced and unstable – dictate surgical fixation • Restore length, alignment, rotation and provide stability – ideal environment for soft tissue healing and reduces wound infection – reduces dead space and hematoma volume • Inflammatory response dampened • Exudates and edema is reduced • Tissue revascularization is encouraged
  • 69.
    When to useplates? • Open diaphyseal fractures of arm & forearm • Open diaphyseal fractures lower extremity – NOT recommended – Open tibial shaft plating assoc high infection rate* • Open periarticular fractures – Treatment of choice in both upper and lower extremities Bach AW, Hansen ST Jr.: Plates versus external fixation in severe open tibial shaft fractures. A randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr;(241):89-94.
  • 70.
    When to useIM nails? • Treatment of choice for most diaphyseal fractures of the lower extremity • Inserted without disrupting the already injured soft tissue envelope • Preserves the remaining extra osseous blood supply to cortical bone • Malunion is uncommon
  • 71.
    To ream ornot to ream? • Does reaming cause additional damage to the endosteal blood supply? • Solid IM nails without reaming has a lower risk of infection that tubular nails with a large dead space* • However reamed IM nails are biomechanically stronger and can reliably maintain fracture reduction if statically locked • 2000 Finkemeier et al. – reamed vs unreamed interlocked nails of open tibias – NO statistical difference in outcome and risk of complication** *Melcher GA, Claudi B, Schlegel U, Perren SM, Printzen G, Munzinger J.Influence of type of medullary nail on the development of local infection. An experimental study of solid and slotted nails in rabbits; .J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Nov;76(6):955-9. **Keating JF, O'Brien PJ, Blachut PA, Meek RN, Broekhuyse HM: Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Mar;79(3):334-41. **Finkemeier CG, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, Templeman DC, Varecka TF: A prospective, randomized study of intramedullary nails inserted with and without reaming for the treatment of open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Mar-Apr;14(3):187-93.
  • 72.
    When to useexternal fixation? • Diaphyseal fractures not amenable to IM nails • Ring fixators for periarticular fractures • Temporary joint spanning ex fix is popular for knee, ankle, elbow and wrist • If temporary, plan for conversion to IM nail within 3 weeks
  • 73.
    Ex-fix: Weigh thepros and cons! • Historically was definitive treatment • Now, more commonly as temporary fixation • Can be applied almost always and everywhere • Severe soft tissue damage and contamination
  • 74.
    Advantages • Easy andquick • Relatively stable fixation • No further damage done • Avoids hardware in the open wound
  • 75.
    Disadvantages • Pin trackinfections • Malalignment • Delayed union • Poor patient compliance
  • 76.
    Skin cover andsoft tissue reconstruction • Do these early! • 1994 Osterman et al.* – Retrospective 1085 fractures, 115 G2 and 239 G3 • All treated with appropriate IV Abx and I&D – No infection if wounds closed at 7.6 days – Yes infection if wounds closed at 17.9 days *Ostermann PA, Seligson D, Henry SL: Local antibiotic therapy for severe open fractures: A review of 1085 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:93–97. Infection risk increases if wound open > 7 days
  • 77.
    Reconstructive ladder: optionsfor wound coverage Primary closure Secondary intention Skin graft Local flap Regional flap Distant flap Free flap Tissue expansion Type 1 open fx Type 3B open fx Type 2/3A open fx
  • 78.
  • 79.
  • 80.
    Type 3c, abad injury! • Devastating damage to bone and soft tissue • Major arterial injuries that require repair • Poor functional outcome • Consensus btwn ortho, vascular and plastics • Salvage is technically possible in most cases • However it is not always the correct choice esp type 3c tibia fractures
  • 81.
    We can doboth, salvage & amputate. • Vascular surgery can revascularize with bypass graft – Generally before fracture stabilization • Plastics can provide soft tissue coverage • However, in the tibia, the severity to soft tissue envelope and bone may result in infected nonunion • If salvage…. long course of repeated surgical procedures – Painful and psychologically distressing – Functional outcome may be poor and no better than amputation
  • 82.
    How to decide,salvage or amputate? • Important factors in decision making:* – General condition of the patient (shock) – Warm ischemia time (>6hours) – Age (>30 years) – Cut to crush ratio (blunt injuries has a large zone of crush) Howe HR Jr, Poole GV Jr, Hansen KJ, Clark T, Plonk GW, Koman LA, Pennell TC: Salvage of lower extremities following combined orthopedic and vascular trauma. A predictive salvage index. Am Surg. 1987 Apr;53(4):205-8.
  • 83.
    Gunshot injuries • Energydissipated at impact = damage severity • High velocity rifles and close range shotguns – Worst, high energy of impact – Huge secondary cavitation – Secondary effects of shattered bone fragments • Bullets lodged in joints should be removed – avoid lead arthropathy and systemic lead poisoning
  • 84.
    Low velocity GSW<2000 ft/sec • Low velocity handguns – Less severe, not treated like open fractures – Cavitation is not significant – Secondary missile effects are minimal – Bone fragments rarely stripped of soft tissue attachments and blood supply – Soft tissue injuries not severe and skin wounds are small
  • 85.
    Low velocity GSWopen fractures • Geisslar et al. * • If neurovascular status normal, do local debridement • NO formal I&D needed • IV Abx • Approach fx fixation as if closed • Dickey et al.** – No abx vs IV Ancef x 3d – 67 low velocity GSW fxs – Not requiring operative fixation – No difference in infection rates *Geisslar ett al, J Ortho Trauma, 4;39-41,1990 **Dickey et al, J Ortho Trauma, 3;6-10,1989 Treat open fractures from low velocity GSW as closed fractures without Abx
  • 86.
    Pitfalls and complications •Infection  delayed union, nonunion, malunion and loss of function • Plan ahead to avoid delayed union and nonunion • Predict nonunion in severe injuries with bone loss – Bone grafting usually delayed 6 weeks when soft tissues have soundly healed – Autogenous bone grafting is usual strategy – Fibular transfer, free composite graft or distraction osteogenesis for complex defects – Recombinant human BMP in open tibia fracture reduces risk of delayed union
  • 87.
    Advances… • BMPs – 40%decreased infection rate with BMP in type 3 open tibia fractures* • Antibiotic Laden Bone Graft** – Tobramycin-impregnated calcium sulfate pellets with demineralized bone matrix – Animal study: successful in preventing infection *BESTT Study Group, Govender S, Csimma C, Genant H, Valentin-Opran A. “Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 for Treatment of Open Tibial Fractures: A prospective, controlled, randomized study of four hundred and fifty patients.” JBJS-A 2002. 84(12): 2123-2134. **Beardmore AA, Brooks DE, Wenke JC, Thomas DB. “Effectiveness of local antibiotic delivery with an osteoinductive and osteoconductive bone-graft substitute.” JBJS-A 2005. 87(1): 107-112.
  • 88.
    Summary A = goodevidence (level 1 studies) B = fair evidence (level 2/3 studies) C = poor quality evidence (level 4/5 studies) I = insufficient or conflicting evidence Okike K, Bhattacharyya T: Trends in the management of open fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006 Dec;88(12):2739-48.
  • 89.