Pin tract infection with contemporary external fixation: how much of a problem?
OBJECTIVE
To determine the incidence of pin tract infection.DESIGN Retrospective chart review.


METHODS
Level 1 trauma center in an urban community.


METHODS
A total of 285 patients with 285 fractures over a 4-year period (1997-2001).


METHODS
External fixation.


METHODS
Incidence of pin tract infection.


RESULTS
Of 285 fractures, 32 (11.2%) were complicated by infection. The incidence of infection according to montage was 3.9% (3/77) for ring fixators, which was significantly different (P < 0.04) from the 12.9% incidence (23/178) for unilateral fixators and the 20.0% incidence (6/30) for hybrid fixators (P = 0.004). The incidences of pin tract infection for the unilateral fixator group and the hybrid fixator group were not significantly different.


CONCLUSIONS
Patients with hybrid external fixators had a similar risk of pin tract infection as patients who had unilateral fixators. The infection rate in the ring fixator group was significantly lower than the hybrid external and unilateral fixator groups.
Parameswaran
A Dushi
AD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 210 E. Gray Street, Suite 1003, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Roberts
Craig S
CS
Seligson
David
D
Voor
Michael
M
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001858:Bone Nails / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016267:External Fixators / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005260:Female; D005592:Fracture Fixation / Q000009:adverse effects*; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000209:etiology*