Negative pressure wound therapy combined with reversed latissimus dorsi muscle flap for postoperative deep infection after spinal instrumentation / 中华创伤骨科杂志

Objective To explore a potentially effective treatment of postoperative deep infection after spinal instrumentation without removal of implants. Methods A total of 4 patients with postoperative deep infection after spinal instrumentation were treated at our hospital between January 2015 and May 2016. They were 2 men and 2 women, aged from 62 to 75 years (mean, 69.2 years). They were treated with ag-gressive surgical debridement under the guidance of methylene blue and negative pressure wound therapy. Reversed latissimus dorsi muscle flap was used to obturate the wound when the bacterial culture of the wound was negative and the relevant inflammatory indicators returned to normal. Negative pressure treatment con-tinued over the closed incision. Results The devices for negative pressure wound therapy were removed in the 4 patients one week after surgery. All the wounds were healed well by first intention 2 weeks after surgery without removal of their implants. The patients were discharged after their examinations for blood routine, CRP, ESR and PCT turned to be normal. Follow-ups for more than one year revealed no re-infection, implants loosening or other adverse effects. Conclusions Negative pressure wound therapy combined with reversed latissimus dorsi muscle flap is a new attempt to treat postoperative deep infection after spinal instru-mentation without implant removal. It may increase the rate of implants reserved, accelerate wound healing and raise the curative rate of deep infection.

Cytotoxicity of a new antimicrobial coating for surgical screws: an in vivo study

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>The risk of surgery-related infection is a persistent problem in orthopaedics and infections involving implants are particularly difficult to treat. This study explored the responses of bone and soft tissue to antimicrobial-coated screws. We investigated whether such screws, which have never been used to fix bony tissues, would result in a cytotoxic effect. We hypothesised that the coated screws would not be toxic to the bone and that the likelihood of infection would be reduced since bacteria are not able to grow on these screws.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Titanium screws were inserted into the left supracondylar femoral regions of 16 rabbits. The screws were either uncoated (control group, n = 8) or coated with a polyvinylpyrrolidone-polyurethane interpolymer with tertiary amine functional groups (experimental group, n = 8). At Week 6, histological samples were obtained and examined. The presence of necrosis, fibrosis and inflammation in the bony tissue and the tissue surrounding the screws was recorded.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Live, cellular bone marrow was present in all the rabbits from the experimental group, but was replaced with connective tissue in four rabbits from the control group. Eight rabbits from the control group and two rabbits from the experimental group had necrosis in fatty bone marrow. Inflammation was observed in one rabbit from the experimental group and five rabbits from the control group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Titanium surgical screws coated with polyvinylpyrrolidone-polyurethane interpolymer were associated with less necrosis than standard uncoated screws. The coated screws were also not associated with any cytotoxic side effect.</p>

Orbital Implant Infection after Drilling Procedure

PURPOSE: To report the severity of orbital implant infection related to a drilling procedure and to provide a foundation for reevaluating this procedure. METHODS: We investigated retrospectively 17 patients who were suspected of orbital implant infection and whose infected implants were ultimately removed. In these patients, increased mucopurulent eye discharge and implant exposure after the drilling procedure were observed. We attempted to treat them with topical and systemic antibiotics, but the discharge and implant exposure did not improve. RESULTS: Of the 17 removed implants, 13 were hydroxyapatite and 4 were Medpor(R). The pegs used were plastic pegs in 12 cases and titanium pegs in 5 cases. The average duration from the first orbital implant insertion to drilling was 10.2+/-5.3 months. The average duration from drilling to severe infection symptoms was 37.0+/-30.0 months. The average duration from the onset of symptoms to implant removal was 12.9+/-12.6 months. The mean follow-up period after final surgery was 15.4 months. In most cases, the deep portions of the removed implants were fragile, malodorous, and filled with pus. Acute and chronic inflammatory cell infiltrations were observed in the pathological examinations, and H. influenzae, S. aureus, S. viridans were identified. They did not receive any drilling procedure thereafter and no infection or inflammatory sign was subsequently observed. CONCLUSIONS: Drilling and pegging can cause unexpected, severe complications such as orbital implant infection, in which the infected implant has to be removed to be cured. Therefore, before performing a drilling procedure doctors should carefully consider the patient's preferences and urgent needs.

A Case of Orbital Abscess following Porous Orbital Implant Infection

PURPOSE: We present a case of orbital abscess following porous orbital implant infection in a 73-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Just one month after a seemingly uncomplicated enucleation and porous polyethylene (Medpor(R)) orbital implant surgery, implant exposure developed with profuse pus discharge. The patient was unresponsive to implant removal and MRI confirmed the presence of an orbital pus pocket. Despite extirpation of the four rectus muscles, inflammatory granulation debridement and abscess drainage, another new pus pocket developed. RESULTS: After partial orbital exenteration, the wound finally healed well without any additional abscess formation. CONCLUSIONS: A patient who has risk factors for delayed wound healing must be examined thoroughly and extreme care such as exenteration must be taken if there is persistent infection.

Experience of Recurrent Periprosthetic Infection After Augmentation Mammaplasty

Infection following insertion of a breast implant is relatively uncommon, with an overall incidence of less than 4 percent, but can be devastating. Although its management options may be antibiotic therapy along with active surgical regimen like drainage, mechanical irrigation, debridement and implant removal, the efficacy of aforementioned therapeutic regimen is unclear in some cases, thus can be challenging. In particular cases of being chronic and refractory to therapy, spreading of infection which was originally localized in the periprosthetic space-over adjacent tissues by an aggressive curettage at the early stage appears to play a major role. Months elapse before a complete resolution of the infection, and it can also cause serious physical and mental issues in patients. Based on clinical and operative findings in four cases of a chronic, refractory and recurrent periprosthetic infection following an aggressive initial debridement and curettage, we suggest that surgeon should be watchful against debridement and curettage at the early stage of infection and pay special attention to make an accurate and limited curettage using endoscopy.