Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis

Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Zhang, Yanlong [verfasserIn] Tian, Shuwei Liu, Meiyu Zhai, Wenfang Zhou, Yujie Peng, Aqin

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	Tibial fracture Infected bone defect Soft tissue defect Semiopen bone grafting Bone cement

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2023

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders - London : BioMed Central, 2000, 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:24 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; day:19 ; month:05

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x

Katalog-ID:	SPR05250476X

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	SPR05250476X
003	DE-627
005	20230726104844.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230726s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR05250476X
035			\|a (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Zhang, Yanlong \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2023
520			\|a Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding.
650		4	\|a Tibial fracture \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Infected bone defect \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Soft tissue defect \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Semiopen bone grafting \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Bone cement \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Tian, Shuwei \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Liu, Meiyu \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Zhai, Wenfang \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Zhou, Yujie \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Peng, Aqin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC musculoskeletal disorders \|d London : BioMed Central, 2000 \|g 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai \|w (DE-627)326643745 \|w (DE-600)2041355-5 \|x 1471-2474 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:24 \|g year:2023 \|g number:1 \|g day:19 \|g month:05
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 24 \|j 2023 \|e 1 \|b 19 \|c 05

Indexfelder

author_variant	y z yz s t st m l ml w z wz y z yz a p ap
matchkey_str	article:14712474:2023----::oprsnfniitcmrgaebncmncvrgvruvcusaigriaeneipnoerfigsnfriilrcueihnet
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x doi (DE-627)SPR05250476X (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Zhang, Yanlong verfasserin aut Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. Tibial fracture (dpeaa)DE-He213 Infected bone defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Soft tissue defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Semiopen bone grafting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bone cement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tian, Shuwei aut Liu, Meiyu aut Zhai, Wenfang aut Zhou, Yujie aut Peng, Aqin aut Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders London : BioMed Central, 2000 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai (DE-627)326643745 (DE-600)2041355-5 1471-2474 nnns volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 24 2023 1 19 05
spelling	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x doi (DE-627)SPR05250476X (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Zhang, Yanlong verfasserin aut Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. Tibial fracture (dpeaa)DE-He213 Infected bone defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Soft tissue defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Semiopen bone grafting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bone cement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tian, Shuwei aut Liu, Meiyu aut Zhai, Wenfang aut Zhou, Yujie aut Peng, Aqin aut Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders London : BioMed Central, 2000 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai (DE-627)326643745 (DE-600)2041355-5 1471-2474 nnns volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 24 2023 1 19 05
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x doi (DE-627)SPR05250476X (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Zhang, Yanlong verfasserin aut Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. Tibial fracture (dpeaa)DE-He213 Infected bone defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Soft tissue defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Semiopen bone grafting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bone cement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tian, Shuwei aut Liu, Meiyu aut Zhai, Wenfang aut Zhou, Yujie aut Peng, Aqin aut Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders London : BioMed Central, 2000 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai (DE-627)326643745 (DE-600)2041355-5 1471-2474 nnns volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 24 2023 1 19 05
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x doi (DE-627)SPR05250476X (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Zhang, Yanlong verfasserin aut Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. Tibial fracture (dpeaa)DE-He213 Infected bone defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Soft tissue defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Semiopen bone grafting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bone cement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tian, Shuwei aut Liu, Meiyu aut Zhai, Wenfang aut Zhou, Yujie aut Peng, Aqin aut Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders London : BioMed Central, 2000 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai (DE-627)326643745 (DE-600)2041355-5 1471-2474 nnns volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 24 2023 1 19 05
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x doi (DE-627)SPR05250476X (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Zhang, Yanlong verfasserin aut Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. Tibial fracture (dpeaa)DE-He213 Infected bone defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Soft tissue defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Semiopen bone grafting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bone cement (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tian, Shuwei aut Liu, Meiyu aut Zhai, Wenfang aut Zhou, Yujie aut Peng, Aqin aut Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders London : BioMed Central, 2000 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai (DE-627)326643745 (DE-600)2041355-5 1471-2474 nnns volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 24 2023 1 19 05
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC musculoskeletal disorders 24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai volume:24 year:2023 number:1 day:19 month:05
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Tibial fracture Infected bone defect Soft tissue defect Semiopen bone grafting Bone cement
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC musculoskeletal disorders
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Zhang, Yanlong @@aut@@ Tian, Shuwei @@aut@@ Liu, Meiyu @@aut@@ Zhai, Wenfang @@aut@@ Zhou, Yujie @@aut@@ Peng, Aqin @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-05-19T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326643745
id	SPR05250476X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR05250476X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230726104844.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230726s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR05250476X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhang, Yanlong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tibial fracture</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Infected bone defect</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Soft tissue defect</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Semiopen bone grafting</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bone cement</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tian, Shuwei</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liu, Meiyu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhai, Wenfang</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhou, Yujie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peng, Aqin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC musculoskeletal disorders</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643745</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041355-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2474</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:19</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">19</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Zhang, Yanlong
spellingShingle	Zhang, Yanlong misc Tibial fracture misc Infected bone defect misc Soft tissue defect misc Semiopen bone grafting misc Bone cement Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
authorStr	Zhang, Yanlong
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326643745
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2474
topic_title	Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis Tibial fracture (dpeaa)DE-He213 Infected bone defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Soft tissue defect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Semiopen bone grafting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bone cement (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Tibial fracture misc Infected bone defect misc Soft tissue defect misc Semiopen bone grafting misc Bone cement
topic_unstemmed	misc Tibial fracture misc Infected bone defect misc Soft tissue defect misc Semiopen bone grafting misc Bone cement
topic_browse	misc Tibial fracture misc Infected bone defect misc Soft tissue defect misc Semiopen bone grafting misc Bone cement
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC musculoskeletal disorders
hierarchy_parent_id	326643745
hierarchy_top_title	BMC musculoskeletal disorders
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326643745 (DE-600)2041355-5
title	Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR05250476X (SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e
title_full	Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
author_sort	Zhang, Yanlong
journal	BMC musculoskeletal disorders
journalStr	BMC musculoskeletal disorders
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Zhang, Yanlong Tian, Shuwei Liu, Meiyu Zhai, Wenfang Zhou, Yujie Peng, Aqin
container_volume	24
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Zhang, Yanlong
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x
title_sort	comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
title_auth	Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
abstract	Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. © The Author(s) 2023
abstractGer	Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. © The Author(s) 2023
abstract_unstemmed	Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding. © The Author(s) 2023
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x
remote_bool	true
author2	Tian, Shuwei Liu, Meiyu Zhai, Wenfang Zhou, Yujie Peng, Aqin
author2Str	Tian, Shuwei Liu, Meiyu Zhai, Wenfang Zhou, Yujie Peng, Aqin
ppnlink	326643745
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x
up_date	2024-07-04T03:01:38.970Z
_version_	1803615835497955328
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR05250476X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230726104844.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230726s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR05250476X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12891-023-06475-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhang, Yanlong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective To compare antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage (bone cement surface technique; BCS-T) versus vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect. Method This retrospective analysis compared the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing BCS-T (n = 16) versus VSD (n = 15) for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from March 2014 to August 2019. For BCS-T group, osseous cavity was filled with autograft bone graft after debridement, and then the wound was covered with a 3-mm layer of bone cement impregnated with vancomycin and gentamycin. The dressing was changed every day in the first week, and every 2 ~ 3 days in the second week. For VSD group, a negative pressure of -150 ~ -350 mmHg was maintained, and the dressing was changed every 5–7 days. All patients received antibiotics treatment based on bacterial culture results for 2 weeks. Results The 2 groups did not differ in age, sex and key baseline characteristics, including type of Gustilo-Anderson classification, size of the bone and soft tissue defect, the percentage of primary debridement, bone transport, and the time from injury to bone grafting. The median follow-up was 18.9 months (range:12–40). The time to complete coverage of bone graft by granulation tissue was 21.2 (15.0–44.0) and 20.3 (15.0–24.0) days in the BCS-T and VSD groups, respectively (p = 0.412). The 2 groups also did not differ in wound healing time (3.3 (1.5–5.5) versus 3.2(1.5–6.5) months; p = 0.229) and bone defect healing time (5.4(3.0-9.6) versus 5.9(3.2–11.5) months; p = 0.402). However, the cost of covering material was significantly reduced in the BCS-T group (2071 ± 134 versus 5542 ± 905 yuan; p = 0.026). Paley functional classification at 12 months did not differ between the 2 groups (excellent in 87.5% versus 93.3% in the 2 groups; p = 0.306). Conclusion BCS-T could achieve clinical outcomes similar to VSD in patients receiving bone graft for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect, but material cost was significantly reduced. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our finding.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tibial fracture</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Infected bone defect</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Soft tissue defect</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Semiopen bone grafting</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bone cement</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tian, Shuwei</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liu, Meiyu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhai, Wenfang</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhou, Yujie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peng, Aqin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC musculoskeletal disorders</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2023), 1 vom: 19. Mai</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643745</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041355-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2474</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:19</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06475-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">19</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.40059

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement coverage versus vacuum sealing drainage in semi-open bone grafting using for tibial fracture with infected bone and soft tissue defect: a retrospective analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?