Primary or secondary wound healing of the pin sites after removal of the external fixator: study protocol for a prospective, randomized controlled, monocenter trial
Franz Roth, Flavio Cagienard, Björn C Link, Sandro Hodel, Dirk Lehnick, Reto Babst, Frank J P Beeres, Franz Roth, Flavio Cagienard, Björn C Link, Sandro Hodel, Dirk Lehnick, Reto Babst, Frank J P Beeres
Abstract
Background: Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or secondary open-wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin site. The primary aim is to compare pin-site infection rates. The secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing.
Methods and design: This is a prospective, randomized controlled, blinded, monocenter study based on a non-inferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin-entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized according to whether the proximal pin-entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open-wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre- and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin-entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin-entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinical follow-up visits. Further controls take place at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after pin removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (subjective preference of patients and Vancouver Scar Scale score).
Discussion: This study aims to answer how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized controlled, blinded monocenter trial should determine whether primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03842956. Registered retrospectively on 13 February 2019.
Keywords: External fixator; Fix-Ex; Fixateur externe; Fixator external; Infection; Pin site; Pin-tract infection; Trauma; Wound healing.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
References
- Mahan J, Seligson D, Henry SL, et al. Factors in pin tract infections. Orthopedics. 1991;14(3):305–308.
- Camathias C, Valderrabano V, Oberli H. Routine pin tract care in external fixation is unnecessary: a randomised, prospective, blinded controlled study. Injury. 2012;43:1969–1973. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.08.010.
- Ktistakis I, Guerado E, Giannoudis PV. Pin-site care: can we reduce the incidence of infections? Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 3):S35–S39. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(15)30009-7.
- Hodel S, Link B-C, Babst R, Mallee WH, Posso P, Beeres FJP, Traumaplatform Foundation et al. Perioperative management of external fixation in staged protocols—an international survey. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;12(Suppl 3):1–43.
- Lethaby A(1), Temple J, Santy-Tomlinson J. Pin site care for preventing infections associated with external bone fixators and pins. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD004551. 10.1002/14651858.CD004551.pub3. PMID: 24302374.
- Timms A, Pugh H. Pin site care: guidance and key recommendations. Nurs Stand. 2012;27(1):50–55. doi: 10.7748/ns2012.09.27.1.50.c9271.
- W-Dahl A, Toksvig-Larsen S, Lindstrand A. No difference between daily and weekly pin site care. A randomized study of 50 patients with external fixation. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(6):704–708. doi: 10.1080/00016470310018234.
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention. .
- Checketts RG, MacEachem AG, Otterbum M. Orthofix external fixation in trauma and orthopaedics. London: Springer; 2000. Pin track infection and the principles of pin site care; pp. 97–103.
- Rodriquez L, et al. Evidence-based protocol for prophylactic antibiotic in open fractures: improved antibiotic stewardship with no increase in infection rates. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(3):400. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000398.
- Patterson MM. Multicenter pin care study. Orthop Nurs. 2005;24:349–360. doi: 10.1097/00006416-200509000-00011.
- Finlay V, et al. Modified Vancouver scar scale score is linked with quality of life after burn. Burns. 2017;43(4):741–746. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.11.007.
- Holmes SB, Brown SJ. Skeletal pin site care: National Association of Orthopaedic Nurses guidelines for orthopaedic nursing. Orthop Nurs. 2005;24(2):99–107. doi: 10.1097/00006416-200503000-00003.
- Kazmers NH, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Prevention of pin site infection in external fixation: a review of the literature. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2016. 10.1007/s11751-016-0256-4.
- Hodel S, Link, et al. Perioperative management of external fixation in staged protocols: an international survey. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:565–572. doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2135-9..
- Dolkart O, Chechik O, et al. Incidence and severity of infections after closed reduction and external fixation of proximal humeral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27:e81–e86. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318269b3e9.
- Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13(10):606–608. doi: 10.2307/30148464.
Source: PubMed