SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

Does negative pressure wound therapy work in the treatment of problematic orhopeadic infections?

Negatif basınçlı yara tedavisi sorunlu ortopedik enfeksiyonların tedavisinde işe yarıyor mu?

CEMAL KAZIMOĞLU
Pages
20–24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: NPWT seems to be a safe and effective treatment for implant- related infections and chronic osteomyelitis and necessitates fewer recontructive procedures for wound closure

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The treatment of implant- related infections and chronic osteomyelitis is troublesome.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Of the 19 patients 15 had implant-related infection and four had chronic osteomyelitis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: NPWT seems to be a safe and effective treatment for implant- related infections and chronic osteomyelitis and necessitates fewer recontructive procedures for wound closure
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The treatment of implant- related infections and chronic osteomyelitis is troublesome. Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has became an auxillary method for many surgeons. This study aimed to evaluate the effectivity of NPWT in the treatment of problematic orthopeadic infections.Methods: The data of the patients who had been treated for implant- related infection or chronic osteomyelitis were reviewed. Of the 19 patients 15 had implant-related infection and four had chronic osteomyelitis. NPWT was initiated in all patients after radical debridement.Results: All but only one patient with chronic osteomyelithis infection was kept under control. The duration of NPWT was 26.4 days. Of the 19 patients only four needed reconstructive surgery. Conclusion: NPWT seems to be a safe and effective treatment for implant- related infections and chronic osteomyelitis and necessitates fewer recontructive procedures for wound closure

Özet

Amaç: İmplantla ilişkili enfeksiyonların ve kronik osteomyelitlerin tedavisi sorunludur. Negatif basınçlı yara tedavisi bir çok cerrah için yardımcı bir yöntem olmaya başlamıştır. Bu çalışma sorunlu ortopedik enfeksiyonların tedavisinde negatif basınçlı yara tedavisinin etkinliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.Yöntemler: İmplant ile ilişkili enfeksiyon ve kronik osteomiyelit nedeniyle debridman ve negatif basınçlı yara tedavisi uygulanan hastaların bilgileri değerlendirildi. On dokuz hastadan on beşinde implant ilişkili enfeksiyon dördünde ise kronik osteomiyelit vardı. Radikal debridman sonrası tüm hastalara negatif basınçlı yara tedavisi başlandı.Bulgular: Kronik osteomiyelitli bir olgu hariç tüm olgularda enfeksiyon kontrol altına alındı. Negatif basınçlı yara tedavi süresi ortalama 26,4 gün idi. On dokuz hastanın dördünde rekonstrüktif cerrahiye gereksinim duyuldu.Sonuç: Negatif basınçlı yara tedavisi kronik osteomiyelit ve implantla ilişkili enfeksiyonların tedavisinde güvenilir ve etkin bir yöntem olup, yara kapanması için daha az rekonstrüktif ameliyat gereksinimi oluşturmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

KAZIMOĞLU, C. (2017). Does negative pressure wound therapy work in the treatment of problematic orhopeadic infections?. İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 20–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/200985

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Clevland KB. General princibles of infections. In Canale ST, Beaty JH (eds). Campell’s Orthopeadics, twelfth ed. Mosby, Elsevier; 2013: p. 706-723
  2. Spellberg B, and Lipsky BA. Systemic antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:393- 407.
  3. Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgi￾cal implants. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1422-1429.
  4. Donlan RM, and Costerton JW: Biofilms: survival mecha￾nisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:167-193.
  5. Gustilo RB, Merkow RL, Templeman D: The management of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 1990;72A:299-304
  6. Hertel R, Lambert SM, Muller S, Ballmer FT, Ganz R. The timing of soft tissue reconstruction for open fractures of the lower leg. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1999;119:7-12.
  7. Templeman DC, Gulli B, Tsukayama DT, Gustilo RB. Update on management of open fractures of the tibial shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;350:18-25.
  8. Herscovici D, Sanders RW, Scaduto JM, Infante A, DiPasquale T. Vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC therapy) for mana￾gement of patients with high-energy soft tissue injuries. J Orthop Trauma 2003;17:683-688.
  9. Morykwas, MJ, Argenta, LC, Shelton-Brown EL, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: A new method for wound cont￾rol and treatment: Animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast 1997;38(6):553-562.
  10. Fleischman W, Lang E, Klinzl L.Vacuum-assisted wound closure after dermatofasciotomy of the lower extremity. Unfallchirurg 1996;99:283
  11. DeFranzo AJ, Argenta LC, Marks MW, Molnar JA, David LR, Webb LX et al. The use of the vacuum-assisted closure therapy fortreatment of lower-extremity wound with exposed bone. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:1184-1191.
  12. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: A new method for wound control and treatment: Clinical experien￾ce. Ann Plast Surg 1997;38:563-576.
  13. Tan Y, Wang X, Li H, Zheng Q, Li J, Feng G et. al. The cli￾nical efficacy of the vacuum-assisted closure therapy in the management of adult osteomyelitis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:255-9. h