Are there clinical variables determining antibiotic prophylaxis-susceptible versus resistant infection in open fractures?

PURPOSE: In Gustilo grade III open fractures, it remains unknown which demographic or clinical features may be associated with an infection resistant to the administered prophylactic agent, compared to one that is susceptible. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study on patients hospitalized from 2004 to 2009. RESULTS: We identified 310 patients with Gustilo-III open fractures, 36 (12%) of which became infected after a median of ten days. In 26 (72%) of the episodes the pathogen was susceptible to the prophylactic antibiotic agent prescribed upon admission, while in the other ten it was resistant. All antibiotic prophylaxis was intravenous; the median duration of treatment was three days and the median delay between trauma and surgery was one day. In multivariate analysis adjusting for case-mix, only Gustilo-grade-IIIc fractures (vascular lesions) showed tendency to be infected with resistant pathogens (odds ratio 10; 95% confidence interval 1.0-10; p = 0.058). There were no significant differences between cases caused by antibiotic resistant and susceptible pathogen cases in patient's sex, presence of immune suppression, duration and choice of antibiotic prophylaxis, choice of surgical technique or materials, time delay until surgery, use of bone reaming, fracture localization, or presence of compartment syndrome. CONCLUSION: We were unable to identify any specific clinical parameters associated with infection with antibiotic resistant pathogens in Gustilo-grade III open fractures, other than the severity of the fracture itself. More research is needed to identify patients who might benefit from a broader-spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis.

Routine chest X-ray is not mandatory after fluoroscopy-guided totally implantable venous access device insertion.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine whether systematic postoperative chest X-ray is required after totally implantable venous access port device (TIVAD) placement under fluoroscopic control. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with fluoroscopy-guided TIVAD insertion from July 10, 2009 to April 16, 2012 was conducted at the Geneva University Hospitals (n = 927). Patients with an available postoperative chest X-ray were included, regardless of approach (open or percutaneous) and venous access site (subclavian, cephalic, jugular, etc.). Exclusion criteria were incomplete data and preexisting pneumothorax or hemothorax. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-one patients were included. First-intention venous cutdown was performed in 878 patients (98.5%), with success rates of 79.4% and 88.2% when targeting the left and right cephalic veins, respectively. Percutaneous access was the chosen first-intention procedure for 12 patients (1.3%). Eight-hundred thirty-six (93.8%) insertions were performed only by the open approach and 53 (5.9%) implantations required at least one venous puncture. Two implantations were performed using previous central venous accesses. Immediate complications associated with TIVAD placement and detected on the postoperative chest X-ray consisted of 1 asymptomatic pneumothorax, 1 symptomatic hemothorax, and 2 malpositions of the catheter. One additional pneumothorax was discovered during the first night after TIVAD insertion in a patient who became symptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: The very low incidence of immediate complications detected by postprocedural chest X-ray suggests that such a control is not mandatory as a routine method after fluoroscopy-guided TIVAD insertion mainly performed by venous cutdown. X-ray should be performed only in cases of clinical suspicion.