Osteomyelitis in Late-Stage Pressure Sore Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.
aged
blood count
c-reactive protein
humans
osteomyelitis
patient outcomes
pressure sore
pressure ulcer
reconstructive surgery
retrospective analysis
tissue repair
Journal
Life (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-1729
Titre abrégé: Life (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101580444
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Aug 2024
02 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
30
05
2024
revised:
20
07
2024
accepted:
25
07
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
29
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Late-stage pressure sore (PS) patients are particularly susceptible to osteomyelitis (OM), as bony prominences commonly constitute the focal point of the ulcer. There are lack of data regarding the associated factors and the clinical relevance of this diagnosis in the context of PS treatment. This retrospective analysis investigated the clinical characteristics, blood markers indicative of infection in PS patients, and development of histologically evident OM. A total of 125 patient were included from 2014 to 2019. The patient records were especially scanned for histological diagnosis of OM. OM was detected in 39% (37/96) of the samples taken during the index procedure. OM prevalence increased to 56% (43/77) at the second and 70% (41/59) at the third debridement. Therefore, the diagnosis of OM was acquired during treatment in 35 cases. Patients diagnosed with initial OM presented significantly higher blood markers, indicative of infection upon admission. Only patients with consistent OM (three positive biopsies) showed higher flap revision rates. This study found no compelling evidence linking OM to worse clinical outcomes in PS patients. In the absence of elevated inflammatory markers, reducing bone biopsy frequency and adopting a less aggressive bone debridement approach may help prevent OM in PS patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Late-stage pressure sore (PS) patients are particularly susceptible to osteomyelitis (OM), as bony prominences commonly constitute the focal point of the ulcer. There are lack of data regarding the associated factors and the clinical relevance of this diagnosis in the context of PS treatment.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective analysis investigated the clinical characteristics, blood markers indicative of infection in PS patients, and development of histologically evident OM. A total of 125 patient were included from 2014 to 2019. The patient records were especially scanned for histological diagnosis of OM.
RESULTS
RESULTS
OM was detected in 39% (37/96) of the samples taken during the index procedure. OM prevalence increased to 56% (43/77) at the second and 70% (41/59) at the third debridement. Therefore, the diagnosis of OM was acquired during treatment in 35 cases. Patients diagnosed with initial OM presented significantly higher blood markers, indicative of infection upon admission. Only patients with consistent OM (three positive biopsies) showed higher flap revision rates.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study found no compelling evidence linking OM to worse clinical outcomes in PS patients. In the absence of elevated inflammatory markers, reducing bone biopsy frequency and adopting a less aggressive bone debridement approach may help prevent OM in PS patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39202718
pii: life14080973
doi: 10.3390/life14080973
pmc: PMC11355209
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Nov;128(5):498e-503e
pubmed: 22030509
J Wound Care. 2021 Aug 2;30(8):604-611
pubmed: 34382852
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 04;4:CD011586
pubmed: 27040598
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Jan 7;68(2):338-342
pubmed: 29986022
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1986 May;5(1):31-8
pubmed: 3709093
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Mar;22(3):267.e1-8
pubmed: 26620686
J Tissue Viability. 2020 Aug;29(3):197-203
pubmed: 32414554
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Jan 1;147(1S-1):61S-67S
pubmed: 33347064
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Dec 1;148(6):1026e-1039e
pubmed: 34847132
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 20;(5):CD011334
pubmed: 25992684
Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Oct;61(4):425-9
pubmed: 18812715
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Dec;127(12):1599-602
pubmed: 14632571
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009 Mar;55(3):42-53
pubmed: 19359709
J Hosp Infect. 2013 Apr;83(4):314-20
pubmed: 23313027
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;13(1):77-86
pubmed: 15712985
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 03;(4):CD009958
pubmed: 24700291
World J Surg. 2009 Jul;33(7):1396-402
pubmed: 19424752
Lancet. 2004 Jul 24-30;364(9431):369-79
pubmed: 15276398
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Feb 1;149(2):483-493
pubmed: 34898527
Ann Surg. 2016 Aug;264(2):399-403
pubmed: 26501707
Scand J Infect Dis. 2011 Dec;43(11-12):947-52
pubmed: 21728745
J Orthop Trauma. 2023 Sep 1;37(9):423
pubmed: 37053120
Drug Deliv. 2021 Dec;28(1):2392-2414
pubmed: 34755579
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Apr;129(4):897-904
pubmed: 22183500
J Bone Jt Infect. 2020 Aug 26;6(1):21-32
pubmed: 32983845