Infectious complications of surgical treatment in long bone methaepiphyseal fractures
In recent decades, metalosteosynthesis has been used to treat fractures of bones, the indications to which are rapidly expanding, which is promoted by the spread of AO’s development. Along with this, there is a significant number of complications of metalosteosynthesis, first of all, infection. It is generally believed that complications in the use of internationally recognized AO technologies are associated only with the low professional training of surgeons, which is difficult to accept completely.
Objective: to conduct a retrospective analysis of the causes of infectious complications after metalosteosynthesis fractures of distal metaepiphises of long bones and on its basis to determine tactical and technological measures to reduce their number.
Methods: the clinical material of the department of bone infection «Kharkiv City Multiprofile Hospital № 18» was used. The study group included 78 patients with infectious complications after osteosynthesis of fractures of distal metaepiphises of long bones.
Results: the interaction between infection complications and the chosen tactics of surgical treatment was traced. Among the most likely causes of infectious complications after metalosteosynthesis fractures of the pilon type are either tactical or preoperative planning errors. In the case of open and high-energy injury, distal metaepiphises of long bones is recommended to give preference to extra-osseous methods of osteosynthesis.Conclusions: for the prevention of i infectious complications, advanced understanding of AO technologies in the light of the biological principles of osteosynthesis, careful preoperative planning, technological support of operations, training of surgeons, expanded use of methods of extra-focal fixation with open and high-energy injury is necessary.
Full Text:PDF (Українська)
Gaiko GV, Korzh MO, Gerasimenko SI, Polishko VP. Analysis of the status of traumatologic and orthopedic care for the population of Ukraine in 2006-2007. The Handbook. Kyiv, 2008. 134 p/ (in Ukrainian)
Ankin LN, Ankin NL. Traumatology. European standards. М.,2005. 438 p. (in Russian)
Burianov OA, Kvasha VP, Shidlovsky MS, et al. Biomechanical substantiation of minimally invasive treatment technologies for fractures of the proximal tibia epimethaphysis. Trauma. 2014;15(1):9–13. (in Ukrainian)
Korzh AA, Ryndenko VG. Complex system of therapeutic and prophylactic measures for severe open limb injuries. Abstract book of ΙV All-Union Congress of traumatologists and orthopedists. Moscow, 1982:33–7. (in Russian)
Rudi TP, Buckley RE , Moran KG. AO-principles of fractures treatment, Т. 1. Principles. Baccamedia, 2013, 636с.
Sokolov VA, Bondarenko AV, Byalik EI, et al. Comparative evaluation of osteosynthesis methods in polysegmentary fractures of lower extremities. Proceedings of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after NN Priorov. 2006;(4):3–8. (in Russian)
Sytnik AA, Belenky AV. Acute compartment syndrome in the fractures of the shin bones. Medical News. Minsk, 2008;7(59):20–4. (in Russian)
Strafun SS. Surgery treatment of unstable fractures of the distal radius epimetaphysis. Trauma. 2010;11(3):341–7. (in Ukrainian)
Helfet DL, Koval K, Pappas J, Sanders RW, DiPasquale T. Interarticular «pilon» fractures of the tibia. Clin Orthop. 1994;(298):221−8.
Luthi UK, Rahu BA, Perren SM. Implants and intracortical vascular disturbances: 28-th Annual ORS Meeting. 1982:337.
Perren SM, Matter P. Evolution of АО philosophy. Margo anterior. 2004;(1):1–3.
Wang ZQ, Wang Q, Jin LG. Operative treatment of complicated distal femoral fractures. Zhongguo xiu fu chong wai ke za zhi. 2004;18(1):12–4.
Copyright (c) 2018 Irina Bets, Andrii Logvin, Oleg Maliasov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.