Supracondylar Fractures: A retrospective chart review comparing infection rate, antibiotic use, surgical time and cost of full surgical preparation and draping vs “semi-sterile” technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Semi-sterile and full preparation and draping techniques are commonly used in closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) of supracondylar fractures. Debate exists whether full preparation and draping is safer than semi-sterile technique in regards to infection risk and the utility of pre-operative antibiotics. This study is a comparison of infection rates, pre-operative antibiotic administration, cost and surgical time between techniques. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 336 pediatric patients with supracondylar fractures repaired with CRPP at our institution was completed between January 2014 and April 2018, 168 per technique. Infection rates, pre-operative antibiotic administration, preparation-to-incision time and cost in semi-sterile draping versus full preparation and draping techniques were compared. Results: Of the 336 patients, 1/168(0.1%) in the full preparation and draping group developed an infection compared to 0/168(0%) patients in the semi-sterile group. Pre-operative antibiotics (Cefazolin) were administered to 76/168(23%) patients in the full preparation and draping group and 0/168(0%) in the semi-sterile group. The infection found received pre-operative antibiotics. Mean preparation-to-incision time for the semi-sterile group was 2.4±2.0 minutes and the full preparation and draping group was 9.9 ±4.2 minutes(p <0.001). Surgical supply cost was $80.72 [CDN] and 108.24$ [CDN], respectively, for the semi-sterile and full preparation and draping groups. Conclusion: Risk of infection using a semi-sterile draping technique was safe and comparable to a full preparation and draping technique when used in CRPP of supracondylar fractures. The administration of pre-operative antibiotics does not appear to make a difference in infection rates. Semi-sterile operative technique is cost effective and has decreased preparation-to-incision time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".