INTERFERENCE OF EXTERNAL DAMAGE CONTROL FIXATION IN DEFINITIVE OSTEOSYNTHESIS

• Autor(a) principal: MUSSATTO,JULIO CESAR DO AMARAL
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: BALSIMELLI,FERNANDO, MUSSATTO,GUILHERME DO AMARAL, ZAMBONI,CAIO, CHRISTIAN,RALPH WALTER, MERCADANTE,MARCELO TOMANIK
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Acta Ortopédica Brasileira (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-78522022002400209
• topic: Infections. External Fixators. Fracture Fixation; Internal

ABSTRACT Introduction: Indications for provisional external fixation prior to the definitive treatment of fractures are associated with the control of local and systemic damage and the impossibility of definitive osteosynthesis in the emergency. Objective: To identify complications associated with external fixation prior to definitive internal osteosynthesis. Methods: This is a comparative, prospective study (Level II). Inclusion criteria: patients treated as emergencies (November 2019 and March 2020) who underwent provisional external correction followed by definitive osteosynthesis. We look for signs of inadequacies in external correction and correlation with infections (erythema, hyperemia, fistulae in the path of the pins or surgical scars), systemic symptoms of infection, and radiographic parameters for treatment up to eight weeks after surgery. Results: The average time for conversion to definitive osteosynthesis was 15.9 days and 47 lower limbs and three upper limbs were fixed. Of the participants who had deep infections, three (6%) showed signs during initial treatment (external fixator) and nine (18%), after definitive internal osteosynthesis. We found no correlation between provisional external correction and complications in the definitive treatment with osteosynthesis. Conclusion: The use of temporary external fixation before definitive internal osteosynthesis in fractures of the appendicular skeleton failed to increase complication rates even if the path of the implants in both procedures overlapped. Level of Evidence II, Comparative Prospective Study.