Search

Bone repair after trauma or surgical intervention involves a tightly regulated cascade of events that starts with hemostasis and an inflammatory response, which are critical for successful healing. Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are routinely prescribed for pain relief despite their potential inhibitory effect on bone repair. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of administration of the non‐selective NSAID diclofenac in the inflammatory phase of bone repair in mice with or without lipopolysaccharide‐induced systemic inflammation. Repair of femoral window defects was characterized using micro computed tomography imaging and histological analyses at 2 weeks postoperative. The data indicate (a) impaired bone regeneration associated with reduced osteoblast, osteoclast, and macrophage activity; (b) changes in the number, activity, and distribution of mast cells in regenerating bone; and (c) impaired angiogenesis due to a direct toxic effect of diclofenac on vascular endothelial cells. The results of this study provide strong evidence to support the conjecture that administration of NSAIDs in the first 2 weeks after orthopaedic surgery disrupts the healing cascade and exacerbates the negative effects of systemic inflammation on the repair process. Bone repair in mice chronically treated with diclofenac, a nonselective nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID), with or without lipopolysaccharides‐induced systemic inflammation was found to be disrupted due to inhibitory effects on osteoblasts, osteoclasts, macrophages, and mast cells, as well as by a direct toxic effect on vascular endothelial cells. The results of this study provide strong evidence to support the conjecture that administration of NSAIDs in the first 2 weeks after orthopaedic surgery disrupts the healing cascade and also appears to exacerbate the negative effects of systemic inflammation on the repair process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence shows that ongoing accurate wound assessments using valid and reliable measurement methods is essential to effective wound monitoring and better wound care management. Relying on subjective interpretation in measuring wound dimensions and assuming a rectilinear shape of all wounds renders an inconsistent and inaccurate wound area measurement., Objective: The authors investigated the discrepancy in wound area measurements using a DWMS versus TPR methods and compared debridement codes submitted for reimbursement by assessment method., Methods: The width and length of 177 wounds in 56 patients were measured at an outpatient clinic in the United States using the TPR method (width × length formula) and a DWMS (traced wound dimensions). The maximal allowable payment for debridement was calculated for both methods using the reported CPT codes based on each 20-cm2 estimated surface area., Results: The average wound surface area was significantly higher with the TPR method than with the DWMS (20.20 and 12.81, respectively; P = .025). For patients with dark skin tones, ill-defined wound edges, irregular wound shapes, unhealthy tissues, and the presence of necrotic tissues, the use of the DWMS resulted in significantly lower mean differences in wound area measurements of 14.4 cm2 (P < .008), 8.2 cm2 (P = .040), 6.8 cm2 (P = .045), 13.1 cm2 (P = .036), and 7.6 cm2 (P = .043), respectively, compared with the TPR method. Use of the DWMS for wound surface area measurement resulted in a 10.6% lower reimbursement amount for debridement, with 82 fewer submitted codes, compared with the TPR method., Conclusions: Compared with the DWMS, TPR measurements overestimated wound area more than 36.6%. This overestimation was associated with dark skin tones and wounds with irregular edges, irregular shapes, and necrotic tissue.