Primary Closure or Secondary Wound Healing of Pin Sites After External Fixator Removal: A Single-Center Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this single-center randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a suture with secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of temporary external fixation. METHODS: This noninferiority trial included all patients who were treated with a temporary external fixator on an upper or lower extremity at 1 institution. The primary outcome was pin-site infection. Secondary outcomes were measured at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks and included all other complications, time to pin-site wound healing (in weeks), the most satisfactory pin site as rated by the patient, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, and the other pin sites were treated alternately. RESULTS: Seventy patients, providing 241 pin sites, were included between January 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020. A total of 123 pin sites were treated with primary closure and 118, with secondary wound healing. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range, 46 to 67 years), 44% were male, and the median duration of the external fixation was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8 days). There were no pin-site infections in either group. Wound healing was significantly faster in the primary closure group (median of 2 versus 6 weeks, p = 0.013). The VSS and patient satisfaction showed no differences between groups. There was 1 case of fracture-related infection not related to any pin site. CONCLUSIONS: Primary closure of temporary external fixator pin sites did not result in higher infection rates compared with secondary wound healing, and pin sites healed significantly faster after primary closure. Primary closure should therefore be considered in patients treated with a temporary external fixator. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[Reduction and fixation of tibia plateau fractures : Tips and tactics based on the 3-column concept]. / Reposition und Stabilisation von Tibiaplateaufrakturen : Tipps und Taktik auf Grundlage des 3-Pfeiler-Konzepts.

OBJECTIVE: The surgical management of tibial plateau fractures remains a challenge. The aim of surgery is the anatomical reconstruction of the joint surface with correct length, axis and rotation. The goal of osteosynthesis is to maintain a stable reduction to allow bone healing and functional aftercare. The continued advancements in 3D computed tomography has changed, the classification systems and, in parallel, the treatment strategies significantly changed. The 3­column concept of Luo et al. has proven to be advantageous for planning of access, reduction and stabilisation. INDICATIONS: Taking into consideration patient-specific factors. most displaced tibia plateau fractures are treated by surgery. However, no clear treatment recommendations exist in literature. In our clinical practice, joint displacement of more than 2 mm is generally not tolerated and surgical therapy is advised. OPERATION TECHNIQUE: The surgical technique is preceded by the surgical strategy, which is based on the soft tissue situation and imaging results. The gold standard in imaging is computed tomography. Timing of surgery, patient positioning, surgical approaches as well as the implants are individually adapted to the fracture pattern. RESULTS: The postoperative results are strongly influenced by fracture type, soft tissue condition, patient-specific factors, treatment method, and successful joint reconstruction. The functional postoperative results are often satisfactory even after complex tibia plateau fractures. In the literature, development of posttraumatic arthritis is reported to be 23-44%. In a study by Mehin et al. joint replacement of the knee was performed in 4.5% of cases following the surgical treatment of tibia plateau fractures.

Primary or secondary wound healing of the pin sites after removal of the external fixator: study protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled, monocenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or secondary open-wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin site. The primary aim is to compare pin-site infection rates. The secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing. METHODS AND DESIGN: This is a prospective, randomized controlled, blinded, monocenter study based on a non-inferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin-entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized according to whether the proximal pin-entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open-wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre- and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin-entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin-entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinical follow-up visits. Further controls take place at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after pin removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (subjective preference of patients and Vancouver Scar Scale score). DISCUSSION: This study aims to answer how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized controlled, blinded monocenter trial should determine whether primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03842956. Registered retrospectively on 13 February 2019.