Search

Introduction: Prophylactic surgical drains are commonly used in Nigeria following intramedullary nailing (IMN) of long bone diaphyseal fractures. However, evidence in the literature suggests that drains do not confer any benefit and predispose clean wounds to infection. This study compares outcomes between patients treated with and without prophylactic surgical drainage following diaphyseal long bone fractures treated with IMN.Methods: A prospective cohort study with randomization was conducted at a tertiary referral center in Enugu, Nigeria. Investigators included skeletally mature patients with diaphyseal long bone (femur, tibia, humerus) fractures treated with SIGN IMN. Patients followed-up at 5, 14, and 30 days post-operatively. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI) rate. Secondary outcomes included post-operative pain at 6 and 12 h, need for blood transfusion, wound characteristics (swelling, ecchymosis, and gaping), need for dressing changes, and length of hospital stay.Results: Of the enrolled patients, 76 (96%) of 79 completed 30-day follow-up. SSI rate was associated with patients who received a prophylactic drain versus those who did not (23.7% vs. 10.5%,p = 0.007). There were no significant differences in transfusion need (p = 0.22), wound swelling (p = 0.74), wound ecchymosis (p = 1.00), wound gaping (p = 1.00), dressing change need (p = 0.31), post-operative pain at 6 h (p = 0.25) or 12 h (p = 0.57), or length of stay (p = 0.95).Discussion: Surgical drain placement following IMN of diaphyseal long bone fractures is associated with a significantly higher risk of SSI. Reducing surgical drain use following orthopaedic injuries in lower resource settings may translate to reduced infection rates.

Background: Little is known about the quality of orthopaedic investigations conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Academic collaboration is one model to build research capacity and improve research quality. Our study aimed to determine (1) the quality of clinical orthopaedic research conducted in LMICs, (2) the World Bank Regions and LMICs that publish the highest quality studies, (3) the pattern of collaboration among investigators and (4) whether academic collaboration between LMIC and non-LMIC investigators is associated with studies that have higher levels of evidence. Methods: Orthopaedic studies from 2004 to 2014 conducted in LMICs were extracted from multiple electronic databases. The World Bank Region, level of evidence and author country-affiliation were recorded. Collaboration was defined as a study that included an LMIC with non-LMIC investigator. Results: There were 958 studies that met inclusion criteria of 22,714 searched. Ninety-seven (10.1%) of included studies achieved Level 1 or 2 evidence, but case series (52.3%) were the most common. Collaboration occurred in 14.4% of studies and the vast majority of these (88.4%) were among academic institutions. Collaborative studies were more likely to be Level 1 or 2 (20.3% vs. 8.4%, p