ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2016
[Acute therapeutic measures for limb salvage Part 2 : Debridement, lavage techniques and anti-infectious strategies].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Blast injuries part 2 : Principles of medical treatment].Der Unfallchirurg · 2022Article
- Treatment options for infected bone defects in the lower extremities: free vascularized fibular graft or Ilizarov bone transport?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Management of industrial high-pressure fluid injection injuries (IHPFII): the Water Jetting Association (WJA) experience with water driven injuries.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2019Article
- [Primary soft tissue management in open fracture].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of the primary care of Gustilo-Anderson (GA) type IIIB and IIIC extremity injuries is crucial to the success of the limb salvage procedure. This article provides a compilation of consistent, but often controversially discussed aspects of initial debridement, modern techniques of lavage and wound closure, in addition to current issues on the application of antibiotics and antiseptics, based on our own experiences and the latest literature. The following points should be stressed. Severe extremity injuries with gross contamination (GA IIIA, B, and C) will still be associated with an infection rate of up to 60 %. The initial debridement should be performed as soon as an experienced trauma surgeon is available. Tissue that is definitely avital will have to be removed, whereas traumatized but potentially surviving tissue will have to be re-evaluated during a second-look operation after 36-48 h. Given a high enough level of contamination, biofilms will form after as few as 6 h. The perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis has to be initiated early and should be continued for at least 24 h (GA I/II) or up to 5 days (GA III). In cases of bacterial contamination, wound irrigation will be useful with additives such as polyhexanide, octenidine or superoxidized water. Rinsing of the wound should be performed with 3-9 L and only slight manual pressure (no jet lavage). The definitive primary closure of a wound should be achieved in the initial operation, but only in the case of certain "decontamination" and overall vitality of the wound (GA I and II). In the presence of high-grade injuries, a temporary vacuum sealing technique can be used until the earliest possible definitive plastic surgical wound closure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27160730What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.