Despite the routine use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, postoperative infection following fracture surgery remains a persistent issue with substantial morbidity. The use of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis may have a protective effect and some orthopaedic surgeons have adopted their use in recent years, despite limited evidence of its beneficial effect. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the current literature regarding the effect of prophylactic local antibiotics on the rate of infection in fracture surgery in both open and closed fractures. A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Cohort studies were eligible if they investigated the effect on infection rate of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared with systemic prophylaxis alone following fracture surgery. The data were pooled in a meta-analysis. In total, four randomized controlled trials and 11 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 6161 fractures from various anatomical locations were eligible for inclusion. The majority of the included studies were Level 3 evidence and had a moderate risk of bias. When all fractures were pooled, the risk of infection was significantly reduced when local antibiotics were applied compared with the control group receiving systemic prophylaxis only (OR = 0.39; 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.53, P < 0.001). In particular, there was a significant reduction in deep infections (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38 to 0.91, P = 0.017). The beneficial effect of local antibiotics for preventing total infection was seen in both open fractures (OR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.53, P < 0.001) and closed fractures (OR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.35 to 0.95, P = 0.029) when analyzed separately. This meta-analysis suggests a significant risk reduction for postoperative infection following fracture surgery when local antibiotics were added to standard systemic prophylaxis, with a protective effect present in both open and closed fractures.
Modular acetabular liners are fixed in metal shells by a taper locking mechanism. Male tapers of the liner and female tapers of the metal shell have different taper angles resulting in an angular gap. Depending on the specific manufacturing tolerances varying angular gaps may result and, thus, different contact mechanics may be generated that could alter the stresses within the acetabular liner. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to experimentally determine stresses in a ceramic liner depending on different angular gaps under Two ceramic liners were instrumented at the outer contour with five strain gauge (SG) rosettes each (Fig.1). First, metal shells were axially seated in an asymmetric press-fit model with 0.5 mm under-reaming, then liners were assembled with a 2 kN axial load. SG5 was placed at the flat area of the liner, the other four were placed circumferentially in 90 degrees offset on the rear side. SG2 and SG4 were mounted opposite to each other in press-fit direction while SG1 and SG3 were placed in the non-supported direction. Three inclination angles (0°, 30°, 45°) were tested under Introduction
Materials and Methods
For a safe design of ceramic components in total hip arthroplasty it is important to know the stress state within each part of the system under in vivo loading scenarios. Besides several design parameters, e.g. diametrical clearance between ball head and liner or angular mismatch in the taper region of metal shell and liner, also physiological factors, like patients' weight or bone quality, influence the stresses within the components. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to experimentally determine the stresses in a ceramic liner varying two of the factors: clearance and inclination angle of the liner. Two ceramic liners were instrumented at the outer contour with five strain gauge (SG) rosettes (measuring grid length: 1.5 mm) on each liner (Fig.1). Metal shells were seated in an asymmetric press-fit Sawbones® model using a 0.5 mm under-reaming, and liners were afterwards axially assembled with a 2 kN load. SG5 was placed at the flat area of the liner, the other four were placed circumferentially in 90 degrees offset on the rear side of the liner. SG2 and SG4 were mounted opposite to each other in press-fit direction (contact of metal shell to the Sawbones® block) whereas SG1 and SG3 were placed in the non-supported direction (no contact of metal shell to the Sawbones® block). Four different inclination angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°) were tested under in vivo relevant loads of 4.5 and 11 kN. Two ceramic ball heads were used to examine a mid tolerance clearance and a clearance at the lower tolerance limit. Strain data was converted to stresses and compared using a paired two-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test at an α-level of 0.05.Introduction
Materials and Methods
