Local administration of vancomycin powder in orthopaedic fracture surgery: current practice and trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: Surgical site infections in orthopaedic trauma are a significant problem with meaningful patient and health care system–level consequences. Direct application of antibiotics to the surgical field has many potential benefits in reducing surgical site infections. However, to date, the data regarding the local administration of antibiotics have been mixed. This study reports on the variability of prophylactic vancomycin powder use in orthopaedic trauma cases across 28 centers. Methods: Intrawound topical antibiotic powder use was prospectively collected within three multicenter fracture fixation trials. Fracture location, Gustilo classification, recruiting center, and surgeon information were collected. Differences in practice patterns across recruiting center and injury characteristics were tested using chi-square statistic and logistic regression. Additional stratified analyses by recruiting center and individual surgeon were performed. Results: A total of 4941 fractures were treated, and vancomycin powder was used in 1547 patients (31%) overall. Local administration of vancomycin powder was more frequent in open fractures 38.8% (738/1901) compared with closed fractures 26.6% (809/3040) ( P < 0.001). However, the severity of the open fracture type did not affect the rate at which vancomycin powder was used ( P = 0.11). Vancomycin powder use varied substantially across the clinical sites ( P < 0.001). At the surgeon level, 75.0% used vancomycin powder in less than one-quarter of their cases. Conclusions: Prophylactic intrawound vancomycin powder remains controversial with varied support throughout the literature. This study demonstrates wide variability in its use across institutions, fracture types, and surgeons. This study highlights the opportunity for increased practice standardization for infection prophylaxis interventions. Level of Evidence: Prognostic—III.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".