Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Cleansing compared with no cleansing, Outcome 1 Infection rates.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Cleansing compared with no cleansing, Outcome 1 Infection rates.

Comparison 2 Sterile antiseptic cleansing solution compared with sterile non‐antiseptic cleansing, Outcome 1 Infection rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Sterile antiseptic cleansing solution compared with sterile non‐antiseptic cleansing, Outcome 1 Infection rate.

Comparison 3 Sterile cleansing method compared with non‐sterile cleansing, Outcome 1 Minor infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Sterile cleansing method compared with non‐sterile cleansing, Outcome 1 Minor infection.

Comparison 3 Sterile cleansing method compared with non‐sterile cleansing, Outcome 2 Major infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Sterile cleansing method compared with non‐sterile cleansing, Outcome 2 Major infection.

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 1 Antibiotics needed.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 1 Antibiotics needed.

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 2 Clinical signs of infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 2 Clinical signs of infection.

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 3 Superficial infection.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 3 Superficial infection.

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 4 Infection rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Comparisons between different types of dressings, Outcome 4 Infection rate.

Table 1. Summary data table

Study ID

N

Participants

Interventions

Infection rate

Definition of infection

Duration

Antibiotic prophylaxis

Camilo 2005

30

Ilizarov external fixators; no infection.

(1) Daily: shower, cleanse with saline, gauze dressing soaked with polyvinylpyrrolidone‐iodine;

(2) Daily: shower, cleanse with saline; dry dressing

(1) 66.7%; (2) 46.7%; NS

Defined as purulent secretion.

Follow‐up for time external fixator in place, mean = 273 days (95‐726 days)

Not reported.

Egol 2006

118

Adults; displaced, unstable, distal radial fracture

(1) Daily: cleansing with 1/2 saline/1/2 hydrogen peroxide;

(2) Biopatch dressing changed weekly;

(3) No pin site care; dry dressing changed weekly.

(1) 22.5%; (2) 5%;
(3) 2.5%.

Defined as requiring antibiotics.

Follow‐up for mean of 5.9 weeks (4‐8 weeks). External fixator removed at 6 weeks and patients followed‐up for 6 months.

Standard prophylaxis given to all patients: before and immediately after surgery.

Grant 2005

20

18+ years

(1) Daily: saline cleansing, soft white paraffin ointment;

(2) Twice daily: saline cleansing, 10% povidone‐iodine.

(1) 34.1%; (2) 18.1% (pin sites, not participants).

Defined as redness, induration, haemo‐serous ooze and pain.

Follow‐up until clinical infection or removal of pin.

Intraoperative or postoperative period: 83%.

Henry 1996

30

Aged 11‐18 years

(1) Daily: cleansing with 0.9% sodium chloride;

(2) Daily: cleansing with 70% alcohol;

(3) Daily: no cleansing.

All groups had pin site care consisting of sterile gauze covering, ease of crusting; massage, dry povidone‐iodine spray.

(1) 25%;

(2) 17.5%;

(3) 7.5%. NS

Defined as pain, redness and swelling and when a significant number of pathogenic bacteria cultured.

Pin in place for mean of 150 days (56‐244 days)

Not reported.

Patterson 2005

101

All ages (3‐80 years); 65% male; no inclusion criteria reported.

(1) Twice daily: 1/2 strength peroxide, rinse with saline, apply stable gauze/sponge;

(2) Same cleansing; apply Xeroform/Xeroflo dressing;

(3) Twice daily; saline cleansing, apply stable gauze/sponge;

(4) Same cleansing; apply Xeroform/Xeroflo dressing;

(5) Twice daily: antibacterial soap and water cleansing, apply stable gauze/sponge;

(6) Same cleansing; apply Xeroform/Xeroflo;

(7) No cleansing, apply gauze/sponge (change only if wet/soiled).

(1) 46%;

(2) 9%;

(3) 33%;

(4) 27%;

(5) 39%;

(6) 50%;

(7) 36%. NS

Rating scale that measured redness, swelling, discomfort, tenting, loosening of pins, crusting and drainage. Stage II infection defined as score >3 and requiring treatment with antibiotics; stage III infection defined as score > 7, treatment with IV antibiotics and/or removal of pin.

6‐week follow‐up.

Not reported.

W‐Dahl 2003

50

Surgery for gonarthrosis by hemicallotosis technique; mean age 54 years; inclusion criteria not reported.

(1) Daily: pin site care: cleansing with 0.9% sodium chloride, sterile compress fixed with soft dressing;

(2) Weekly; same pin site care protocol.

Grade 1:
(1) 7.4%;

(2) 12%.

Grade II:
(1) 2.8%;

(2) 0%. NS

Checketts‐Otterburns classification of pin site infections.

10‐week follow‐up

Prophylaxis with IV antibiotics during surgery and 2 doses within 24 hours post operatively followed by 14 days of oral prophylaxis.

Cavusoglu 2009

39

Mean age 50 and 47 years in two groups; 65% and 53% male; no inclusion criteria reported.

(1) Daily showering; cleaning crusts with sterile gauze with iodine solution;

(2) Daily showering; brushing pin sites with soap and water.

Minor infection:

(1) 44%;

(2) 51%.

Major infection:

(1) 4%;

(2) 4%.

Minor infection: Grade 1 and 2 on a modification of the Dahl system by Gordon ‐ not requiring any extra pin site care. Major infection: Grade 3 and above ‐ requiring treatment with oral antibiotics.

Pin site inspection on 5th, 10th, 15th, 30th, 45th, 60th, 75th, 90th, 120th and 150th days of follow‐up until fixator removal.

Prophylaxis for closed fractures: preoperative and postoperative single dose intravenous cephazolin sodium (1 g); open fractures: preoperative 1 day and postoperative 4 day intravenous cephazolin sodium (1 g 3 X day), intravenous gentamicin (160 mg/day) and oral ornidazole (500 mg 2 X day).

Chan 2009

62

Distraction osteogenesis using Ilizarov fixators; age ranged from 1‐76 years; 37% < 14 years; no inclusion criteria reported.

(1) Daily povidone‐iodine cleansing solution;

(2) Saline cleansing solution.

Any grade of Infection:

(1) 19%;

(2) 17%.

Three point grading of infections by system developed in Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in University of Malaya Medical Centre.

Every 2 weeks for 6 months.

Antibiotics only prescribed for patients with grade 2 or 3 infections.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary data table
Comparison 1. Cleansing compared with no cleansing

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Infection rates Show forest plot

3

295

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.30 [0.63, 8.33]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Cleansing compared with no cleansing
Comparison 2. Sterile antiseptic cleansing solution compared with sterile non‐antiseptic cleansing

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Infection rate Show forest plot

3

920

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.82, 1.39]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Sterile antiseptic cleansing solution compared with sterile non‐antiseptic cleansing
Comparison 3. Sterile cleansing method compared with non‐sterile cleansing

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Minor infection Show forest plot

1

610

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.73, 1.02]

2 Major infection Show forest plot

2

691

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.49, 1.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Sterile cleansing method compared with non‐sterile cleansing
Comparison 4. Comparisons between different types of dressings

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Antibiotics needed Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Clinical signs of infection Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Superficial infection Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Infection rate Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Comparisons between different types of dressings