Treatment of Fracture-Related Infection after Pelvic Fracture

URN to cite this document:: urn:nbn:de:bvb:355-epub-548829
DOI to cite this document:: 10.5283/epub.54882

Freigang, Viola

; Walter, Nike

; Rupp, Markus

; Riedl, Moritz

; Alt, Volker

; Baumann, Florian

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
PDF - Published Version
(964kB)

Date of publication of this fulltext: 20 Oct 2023 12:22

Alternative links to fulltext:DOI Publisher

Details

Preview

Indexed in

Export bibliographical data

Abstract

Abstract

Background: The management of pelvic fractures is a significant challenge. Surgical site infection can result in the need for revision surgery, cause functional impairment, and lead to a prolonged length of stay and increased treatment costs. Although reports on fracture-related infection (FRI) after pelvic fracture fixation are sparsely reported in the literature, it is a serious complication. This study analysed patients with FRIs after pelvic fracture regarding patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and an evaluation of risk factors for FRI. Methods: In this retrospective single-centre study, FRI was diagnosed based on clinical symptoms of infection and a positive culture of a bacterial infection. Depending on the severity and acuteness of the infection, osseous stabilization was restored either via implant retention (stable implant, no osteolysis), exchange (loose implant or bony defect), or external fixation (recurrence of infection after prior implant retaining revision). Healing of infection was defined as no sign of recurring infection upon clinical, radiological, and laboratory examination in the last follow-up visit. Results: The FRI rate in our patient population was 7.5% (24/316). In 8/24 patients, the FRI occurred within the first three weeks after initial surgery (early) and 16/24 presented with a late onset of symptoms of FRI. A strategy of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) was successful in 9/24 patients with FRI after pelvic fracture. A total of 10 patients required an exchange of osteo-synthetic implants, whereof three were exchanged to an external fixator. In five patients, we removed the implant because the fracture had already consolidated at the time of revision for infection. A total of 17/24 patients had a poly-microbial infection after a pelvic fracture and 3/24 patients died from post-traumatic multi-organ failure within the first 6 months after trauma. There were no cases of persistent infection within the remaining 21 patients. Conclusions: Although poly-microbial infection is common in FRI after pelvic fracture, the recurrence rate of infection is relatively low. A complex pelvic trauma with significant soft tissue injury is a risk factor for recurrent infection and multiple revisions. A strategy of DAIR can be successful in patients with a stable implant. In cases with recurrent infection or an unstable fracture site, the exchange of implants should be considered.

Owner only: item control page

Download Statistics

Altmetric

Alternative Statistics (altmetrics)

More literature (via CORE)

Details

Preview

Indexed in

Export bibliographical data

Abstract

Abstract

Download Statistics

Downloads

Alternative Statistics (altmetrics)

More literature (via CORE)

University Library