Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Primary Wound Closure After Open Fracture: A Prospective Cohort Study Examining Nonunion and Deep Infection.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the proportion of subjects developing deep infection or nonunion after primary wound closure of open fractures (humerus, radius/ulna, femur, and tibia/fibula). Secondarily, a matched-series analysis compared outcomes with subjects who underwent delayed wound closure.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort between 2009 and 2013 of subjects undergoing primary closure.

SETTING: Trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-three (84 fractures) subjects were enrolled. Eighty-two (99%) subjects (83 fractures) provided follow-up data. Matching (age, sec, fracture location, and grade) was performed using study data of delayed wound closure undertaken at the same center between 2001 and 2009 (n = 68 matched subjects).

INTERVENTION: Primary wound closure occurred when the fracture grade was Gustilo grade 3A or lower and the wound deemed clean at initial surgery. Standardized evaluations occurred until the fracture(s) healed; phone interviews and chart reviews were also undertaken at 1 year.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Deep infection is defined as infection requiring unplanned surgical debridement and/or sustained antibiotic therapy after wound closure; nonunion is defined as unplanned surgical intervention after definitive wound closure or incomplete radiographic healing 1-year after fracture.

RESULTS: Three (4%) subjects had deep infections, whereas 10 (12%) subjects developed nonunion in the primary closure cohort. In the matched analyses [n = 68 pairs; (136 subjects)], the primary closure cohort had fewer deep infections [n = 3 (4%) vs. n = 6 (9%)] and nonunions [n = 9 (13%) vs. n = 19 (29%)] than the delayed closure cohort (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Primary wound closure after an open fracture appears acceptable in appropriately selected patients and may reduce the risk of deep infection and nonunion compared with delayed closure; a definitive randomized trial is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app