Soft tissue management of children's open tibial fractures �C a review of seventy children over twenty years

INTRODUCTION

The management of open tibial fractures in children represents a unique reconstructive challenge. The aim of the study was to evaluate the management of paediatric open tibial fractures with particular regard to soft tissue management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-note analysis was performed for all children presenting with an open tibial fracture at a single institution over a 20-year period for 1985 to 2005.

RESULTS

Seventy children were reviewed of whom 41 were males and 29 females. Overall, 91% (n = 64) of children suffered their injury as a result of a vehicle-related injury. The severity of the fracture with respect to the Gustilo classification was: Grade I, 42% (n = 29); Grade II, 24% (n = 17); Grade III, 34% (n = 24; 7 Grade 3a, 16 Grade 3b, 1 Grade 3c). The majority of children were treated with external fixation and conservative measures, with a mean hospital in-patient stay of 13.3 days. Soft tissue cover was provided by plastic surgeons in 31% of all cases. Four cases of superficial wound infection occurred (6%), one case of osteomyelitis and one case of flap failure. The limb salvage was greater than 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, complications were associated with delayed involvement of plastic surgeons. Retrospective analysis has shown a decreased incidence of open tibial fractures which is reported in similar studies. Gustilo grade was found to correlate with length of hospital admission and plastic surgery intervention. We advocate, when feasible, the use of local fas-ciocutaneous flaps (such as distally based fasciocutaneous and adipofascial flaps), which showed a low complication rate in children.     

Hemofiltration compared to hemodialysis for acute kidney injury: systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of renal replacement therapy (RRT), delivered as hemofiltration vs. hemodialysis, on clinical outcomes in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and conference abstracts were searched to June 2012 for parallel-group or crossover randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hemofiltration vs. hemodialysis in patients with AKI. Two authors independently selected studies and abstracted data on study quality and outcomes. Additional information was obtained from trial authors. We pooled data using random-effects models. RESULTS: Of 6657 citations, 19 RCTs (10 parallel-group and 9 crossover) met inclusion criteria. Sixteen trials used continuous RRT. Study quality was variable. The primary analysis included 3 parallel-group trials comparing similar doses of hemofiltration and hemodialysis; sensitivity analyses included trials comparing combined hemofiltration-hemodialysis or dissimilar doses. We found no effect of hemofiltration on mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.25, p=0.76; 3 trials, n=121 [primary analysis]; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.88-1.38, p=0.38; 8 trials, n=540 [sensitivity analysis]) or other clinical outcomes (RRT dependence in survivors, vasopressor use, organ dysfunction) compared to hemodialysis. Hemofiltration appeared to shorten time to filter failure (mean difference [MD] -7 hours, 95%CI[-19,+5], p=0.24; 2 trials, n=50 [primary analysis]; MD -5 hours, 95%CI[-10, -1], p=0.01; 3 trials, n=113 [including combined hemofiltration-hemodialysis trials comparing similar doses]; MD -6 hours, 95% CI[-10, -1], p=0.02; 5 trials, n=383 [sensitivity analysis]). Data primarily from crossover RCTs suggested that hemofiltration increased clearance of medium to larger molecules, including inflammatory cytokines, compared to hemodialysis, although almost no studies measured changes in serum concentrations. Meta-analyses were based on very limited data. CONCLUSIONS: Data from small RCTs do not suggest beneficial clinical outcomes from hemofiltration, but confidence intervals were wide. Hemofiltration may increase clearance of medium to larger molecules. Larger trials are required to evaluate effects on clinical outcomes.     

Routine chest x-rays in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Chest x-rays (CXRs) are the most frequent radiological tests performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the utility of performing daily routine CXRs is unclear. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase (1948 to March 2011) for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-after observational studies comparing a strategy of routine CXRs to a more restrictive approach with CXRs performed to investigate clinical changes among critically ill adults or children. In duplicate, we extracted data on the CXR strategy, study quality and clinical outcomes (ICU and hospital mortality; duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and hospital stay). RESULTS: Nine studies (39,358 CXRs; 9,611 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Three trials (N = 870) of moderate to good quality provided information on the safety of a restrictive routine CXR strategy; only one trial systematically assessed for missed findings. Pooled data from trials showed no evidence of effect of a restrictive approach on ICU mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.28, P = 0.72; two trials, N = 776), hospital mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41, P = 0.91; two trials, N = 259), ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.86 days, 95% CI -2.38 to 0.66 days, P = 0.27; three trials, N = 870), hospital length of stay (WMD -2.50 days, 95% CI -6.62 to 1.61 days, P = 0.23; two trials, N = 259), or duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -0.30 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.89 days, P = 0.62; three trials, N = 705). Adding data from six observational studies, one of which systematically screened for missed findings, gave similar results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not detect any harm associated with a restrictive chest radiograph strategy. However, confidence intervals were wide and harm was not rigorously assessed. Therefore, the safety of abandoning routine CXRs in patients admitted to the ICU remains uncertain.     

Optimal Mode of clearance in critically ill patients with Acute Kidney Injury (OMAKI) - a pilot randomized controlled trial of hemofiltration versus hemodialysis: a Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project

Introduction

Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) needing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), the effect of convective (via continuous venovenous hemofiltration [CVVH]) versus diffusive (via continuous venovenous hemodialysis [CVVHD]) solute clearance on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of comparing these two modes in a randomized trial.

Methods

This was a multicenter open-label parallel-group pilot randomized trial of CVVH versus CVVHD. Using concealed allocation, we randomized critically ill adults with AKI and hemodynamic instability to CVVH or CVVHD, with a prescribed small solute clearance of 35 mL/kg/hour in both arms. The primary outcome was trial feasibility, defined by randomization of >25% of eligible patients, delivery of >75% of the prescribed CRRT dose, and follow-up of >95% of patients to 60 days. A secondary analysis using a mixed-effects model examined the impact of therapy on illness severity, defined by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, over the first week.

Results

We randomized 78 patients (mean age 61.5 years; 39% women; 23% with chronic kidney disease; 82% with sepsis). Baseline SOFA scores (mean 15.9, SD 3.2) were similar between groups. We recruited 55% of eligible patients, delivered >80% of the prescribed dose in each arm, and achieved 100% follow-up. SOFA tended to decline more over the first week in CVVH recipients (-0.8, 95% CI -2.1, +0.5) driven by a reduction in vasopressor requirements. Mortality (54% CVVH; 55% CVVHD) and dialysis dependence in survivors (24% CVVH; 19% CVVHD) at 60 days were similar.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that a large trial comparing CVVH to CVVHD would be feasible. There is a trend toward improved vasopressor requirements among CVVH-treated patients over the first week of treatment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00675818","term_id":"NCT00675818"}}NCT00675818     

Drotrecogin alfa (activated): does current evidence support treatment for any patients with severe sepsis?

Two international multicentre randomised controlled trials of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), the Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation of Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) and Administration of Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Early Stage Severe Sepsis (ADDRESS) trials, have produced inconsistent results. When 28-day mortality data from these trials for patients with severe sepsis and at high risk of death are pooled using a standard random-effects meta-analysis technique, there is no statistically significant survival benefit (for patients with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores of 25 or more), or a borderline significant benefit (for patients with multi-organ failure). We argue that two important methodological issues might explain the disparate results between the two trials. These issues centre on early trial stopping, which exaggerates treatment effects, and reliance on subgroup analyses, which for DrotAA yields inconsistent results across different definitions of high risk. These concerns call into question the effectiveness of DrotAA in any patients with severe sepsis. Consequently, further randomised trials of this agent in prospectively defined high-risk patients are required to clarify its role in the management of severe sepsis.