There is increasing evidence to support the use of topical antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections. Although previous research suggests a minimal nephrotoxic risk with a single dose of vancomycin powder, fracture patients often require multiple procedures and receive additional doses of topical antibiotics. We aimed to determine if cumulative doses of intrawound vancomycin or tobramycin powder for infection prophylaxis increased the risk of drug-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) among fracture patients. This cohort study was a secondary analysis of single-centre Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Pre-operative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT) trial data. We included patients with a surgically treated appendicular fracture. The primary outcome was drug-induced AKI. The odds of AKI per gram of vancomycin or tobramycin powder were calculated using Bayesian regression models, which adjusted for measured confounders and accounted for the interactive effects of vancomycin and tobramycin.Aims
Methods
The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess the clinical level of evidence of commercially available demineralised bone matrix (DBM) products for their use in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery. A total of 17 DBM products were used as search terms in two available databases: Embase and PubMed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement. All articles that reported the clinical use of a DBM-product in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery were included.Objectives
Methods
We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed
by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom,
with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate
informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice.
After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%)
had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita),
Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question
the need for so many different products, especially with limited
published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that
there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised
trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the
use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice. Cite this article:
