Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Orthop Trauma ; 37(2): e73-e79, 2023 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36001947

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of prophylactic piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) on inpatient acute kidney injury (AKI) and fracture-related infection (FRI) in patients with open fractures. SETTING: The study was conducted at a Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: We reviewed 358 Gustilo-Anderson type II and III open fractures at our institution from January 2013 to December 2017. INTERVENTION: Administration of PT (the PT group) or antibiotics other than PT (the historical control group) during the first 48 hours of arrival for open fracture antibiotic prophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome measurements were rates of inpatient AKI and FRI within six months after definitive fixation. RESULTS: There were 176 patients in the PT group and 182 patients in the historical control group. The PT group had worse American Society of Anesthesiologists class ( P = 0.004) and injury severity scores ( P < 0.001), a higher average number of debridements before closure/coverage ( P = 0.043), and higher rates of gross soil contamination ( P = 0.049) and staged procedures ( P = 0.008) compared with the historical control group.There was no difference in the rate of AKI between the PT and historical control groups (5.7% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.166) nor when stratified by Gustilo-Anderson fracture classification (type II: 5.8% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.702; type III: 5.6% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.283). There was no significant difference in the rate of FRI between the PT and historical control groups (23.6% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.469). CONCLUSION: The use of PT in prophylactic antimicrobial treatment in patients with Gustilo-Anderson type II and III open fractures does not increase the rate of AKI or FRI. We believe PT can be used as an effective monotherapy in these patients without an increased risk of renal injury, but future investigations are necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Fractures, Open , Tibial Fractures , Humans , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Acute Kidney Injury/prevention & control , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Fractures, Open/complications , Fractures, Open/surgery , Fractures, Open/drug therapy , Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination/therapeutic use , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Surgical Wound Infection/drug therapy , Tibial Fractures/surgery , Treatment Outcome
2.
Surg Infect (Larchmt) ; 22(7): 662-667, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33064633

ABSTRACT

Background: Responsible antibiotic stewardship requires surgeons treating open fractures to use the narrowest appropriate antibiotic coverage possible to prevent infection. Because inter-observer agreement about the application of the Gustilo-Anderson open fracture classification is moderate at best, antibiotic selection can be overly aggressive. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Type II open fractures treated with gram-positive coverage only (GP) versus broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage (BS) with piperacillin-tazobactam (PT). Methods: A retrospective review of all Type II open fractures was performed at a single Level one trauma center over a 5-year period (2013-2017). All patients received prophylactic antibiotics on arrival on the basis of the best judgment of classification by the house officer on call. The final Gustilo-Anderson open fracture classification was assigned intra-operatively by the operating surgeon. Two groups were created, a GP antibiotic group (cefazolin and/or clindamycin) and a BS group (PT). A minimum of 3-month follow-up was required for inclusion. Patient demographics, cost of treatment, fracture-related infection (FRI) rates, and infecting bacteria were assessed. Results: The GP group contained 70 open fractures and the BS group contained 74 open fractures. Between the groups, there were no differences in age, sex, race, Body Mass Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Class, or smoking status. There were no statistical differences in Injury Severity Score (ISS), fracture location, fixation method, or rates of staged management with external fixation. There was no difference in FRI rate between the GP and BS groups (8.6% versus 10.8%; p = 0.78). The bacteria responsible for FRI were similar in the GP and BS groups. The hospital charge for PT was 4.39 × the cost of cefazolin. Conclusions: The use of BS coverage in Type II open fractures does not result in a lower infection rate and adds significant cost to patient care. These data support the use of a GP-only antibiotic regimen for Type II open fractures.


Subject(s)
Fractures, Open , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Fractures, Open/drug therapy , Fractures, Open/surgery , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Surgical Wound Infection/drug therapy , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...