Abstract
Background
Polytrauma patients are at high risk of systematic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) due to an exaggerated unbalanced immune response that can lead to multiple organ failure and increased mortality. This response is often heightened following acute surgical management as a result, damage-control orthopaedics (DCO) was born. This allows the patient to be stabilised using external fixation allowing physiology to improve. This systematic review aims to compare DCO against early total care (ETC) (<24hrs intramedullary nailing) in polytraumatised patients with femoral shaft fractures using a diagnosis of acute lung injury (ALI) as the primary outcome measure.
Method
A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and AMED was carried out to identify all English language studies comparing ETC versus DCO using ALI as the primary outcome measure. Two authors independently screened the studies and performed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomised Studies.
Results
Three studies were selected for final inclusion. One multicentre RCT demonstrated a significantly higher odds ratio (6.69) of ALI in the subgroup receiving ETC compared to DCO. The two other studies were retrospective case series with one reporting no significant difference and the second study reporting a significant reduction in ARDS when a DCO approach was used (7.8% vs 15.1%). Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity.
Conclusions
This review supports evidence that in the more unstable patients (Injury Severity Scoreā„30) treated surgically for femoral shaft fractures in the first 24 hours, DCO may have a protective effect over ETC for ALI. However further studies with large sample sizes are needed to provide clarity on the subject area.
Level of Evidence
1
Ethics
No approval required given the nature of this study (systematic review)
