PROPHYLACTIC USE OF LOCAL ANTIBIOTICS IN OPEN FRACTURES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The management of open long bone fractures is well described and has been standardised through a number of well-established guidelines. However, there is no consensus regarding the application of local antibiotics into the open fracture site as a means of reducing infection rates. Materials & Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken as per PRISMA guidelines. PROSPERO Registration CRD42022323545. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and CENTRAL were the databases assessed. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Rob 2 Tool were used to assess bias. A qualitative synthesis of all included studies and meta-analysis of suitable subgroups was undertaken. Results In total, 12 studies (11 observational, 1 RCT) assessing 2431 open fractures were included for analysis. All compared the addition of a local antibiotic therapy to a standard treatment versus the standard treatment alone. The methods of delivery were vancomycin powder (4 papers), tobramycin polymethylmethacrylate beads (4 papers), gentamicin coated intramedullary (IM) nails (2 papers), gentamicin injections (1 paper) and antibiotic released IM core cement (1 paper). The addition of vancomycin powder did not decrease infection rates in comparison to intravenous antibiotics alone (OR 1.3, 95% CI (0.75 – 2.26)). Antibiotic coated IM Nails appear to have an association with lower infection rates than standard IM Nails. PMMA antibiotics have shown varied results in reducing infection rates depending on the individual studies. Conclusions There are numerous methods available to deliver antibiotics locally to an open fracture site. Further high-quality research is required to provide a definitive conclusion on their efficacy irrespective of delivery method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".