Journal List > J Korean Foot Ankle Soc > v.18(2) > 1043334

J Korean Foot Ankle Soc. 2014 Jun;18(2):68-71. Korean.
Published online June 09, 2014.  https://doi.org/10.14193/jkfas.2014.18.2.68
Copyright © 2014 The Korean Foot and Ankle Society. All rights reserved.
Results of Culture Test at the Time of Removal of Metal Implants Used for Ankle Fracture Management
Hyung-Jin Chung, Su-Young Bae, and Jae-Ha Yu
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Su-Young Bae. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 1342 Dongil-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 139-707, Korea. Tel: 82-2-950-1399, Fax: 82-2-950-1398, Email: youngos@paik.ac.kr
Received March 29, 2014; Revised April 28, 2014; Accepted April 28, 2014.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to report the results of culture test at the time of removal of metal devices used for management of ankle fractures and for analysis of contributing factors.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed medical records of 132 patients with lower tibia and ankle fracture who had their metal devices removed during the period from January 2010 to February 2014. Patients with clinical signs of infection were excluded. Culture test was performed by taking the granulation tissue around the metal device at the time of removal. We divided the subjects into two groups, culture positive and negative. We then performed a retrospective review of each medical record of multiple factors that might contribute to the culture results, including laboratory results, medical history, material and size of metal device, indwelling period, and whether or not it was open injury.

Results

Among 132 cases, six were culture positive. Enterococcus was detected in two cases and the others were Staphylococcus. No significant difference in medical history of patients and laboratory results, including C-reactive protein level, was observed between the culture positive and negative group. Culture positive rate was 5.4% in titanium and 3.9% in stainless steel. In terms of metal size, culture positive rate was 5.1% in small plates, 6.7% in large plates, and culture negative in intramedullary nails. The average indwelling period of metal device was 61.5 weeks in the culture positive group, and 68.6 weeks in the negative group. Nine cases were open fractures and all were in the culture negative group.

Conclusion

Whether or not the culture result was positive, there were no meaningful contributing factors. Presence of bacterium on the metal device could not be screened by any laboratory results or other factors.

Keywords: Ankle; Fracture; Metal device; Removal; Culture test

Figures


Figure 1
Clinical photographs show thick granulation tissue around (A) and at under surface (B) of the metal device during the removal.
Click for larger image

Tables


Table 1
Laboratory Results of Two Groups
Click for larger image


Table 2
Co-morbid Conditions of Two Groups
Click for larger image


Table 3
Characteristics According to the Metal Devices
Click for larger image

References
1. Perren SM, Cordey J, Rahn BA, Gautier E, Schneider E. Early temporary porosis of bone induced by internal fixation implants. A reaction to necrosis, not to stress protection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;(232):139–151.
2. Vinh DC, Embil JM. Device-related infections: a review. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2005;15:467–488.
3. Zalavras CG, Christensen T, Rigopoulos N, Holtom P, Patzakis MJ. Infection following operative treatment of ankle fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1715–1720.
4. Sanderson PJ. Infection in orthopaedic implants. J Hosp Infect 1991;18 Suppl A:367–375.
5. Böstman O, Pihlajamäki H. Routine implant removal after fracture surgery: a potentially reducible consumer of hospital resources in trauma units. J Trauma 1996;41:846–849.
6. Rutkow IM. Orthopaedic operations in the United States, 1979 through 1983. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:716–719.
7. Sourlas L, Papadakis M, Lallos S, Brilakis E, Efstathopoulos N. Tibial shaft fracture after removal of an ACE tibial nail. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2011;21:193–196.
8. Beaupre GS, Csongradi JJ. Refracture risk after plate removal in the forearm. J Orthop Trauma 1996;10:87–92.
9. Sanderson PL, Ryan W, Turner PG. Complications of metalwork removal. Injury 1992;23:29–30.
10. Minkowitz RB, Bhadsavle S, Walsh M, Egol KA. Removal of painful orthopaedic implants after fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:1906–1912.
11. Keel SB, Jaffe KA, Petur Nielsen G, Rosenberg AE. Orthopaedic implant-related sarcoma: a study of twelve cases. Mod Pathol 2001;14:969–977.
12. Wang S, Shi X. Molecular mechanisms of metal toxicity and carcinogenesis. Mol Cell Biochem 2001;222:3–9.
13. Gristina AG, Naylor PT, Myrvik QN. Mechanisms of musculoskeletal sepsis. Orthop Clin North Am 1991;22:363–371.
14. Gristina AG, Naylor PT, Webb LX. Molecular mechanisms in musculoskeletal sepsis: the race for the surface. Instr Course Lect 1990;39:471–482.
15. Wagner C, Aytac S, Hänsch GM. Biofilm growth on implants: bacteria prefer plasma coats. Int J Artif Organs 2011;34:811–817.
16. Schaer TP, Stewart S, Hsu BB, Klibanov AM. Hydrophobic polycationic coatings that inhibit biofilms and support bone healing during infection. Biomaterials 2012;33:1245–1254.
17. Moussa FW, Anglen JO, Gehrke JC, Christensen G, Simpson WA. The significance of positive cultures from orthopedic fixation devices in the absence of clinical infection. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 1997;26:617–620.
18. Levy PY, Ollivier M, Drancourt M, Raoult D, Argenson JN. Relation between nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and surgical site infection in orthopedic surgery: the role of nasal contamination. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013;99:645–651.
19. Williams DF. Titanium: epitome of biocompatibility or cause for concern. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76:348–349.