There are greater numbers of casualties surviving their

Prevention and Management of Infections Associated With Combat-Related Extremity Injuries Clinton K. Murray, MD, Joseph R. Hsu, MD, Joseph S. Solomkin, MD, John J. Keeling, MD, Romney C. Andersen, MD, James R. Ficke, MD, and Jason H. Calhoun, MD Orthopedic injuries suffered by casualties during combat constitute approximately 65% of the total percentage of injuries and are evenly distributed between upper and lower extremities. The high-energy explosive injuries, environmental contamination, varying evacuation procedures, and progressive levels of medical care make managing combat-related injuries challenging. The goals of orthopedic injury management are to prevent infection, promote fracture healing, and restore function. It appears that 2% to 15% of combatrelated extremity injuries develop osteomyelitis, although lower extremity injuries are at higher risk of infections than upper extremity. Management strategies of combat-related injuries primarily focus on early surgical debridement and stabilization, antibiotic administration, and delayed primary closure. Herein, we provide evidence-based recommendations from military and civilian data to the management of combat-related injuries of the extremity. Areas of emphasis include the utility of bacterial cultures, antimicrobial therapy, irrigation fluids and techniques, timing of surgical care, fixation, antibiotic impregnated beads, wound closure, and wound coverage with negative pressure wound therapy. Most of the recommendations are not supported by randomized controlled trials or adequate cohorts studies in a military population and further efforts are needed to answer best treatment strategies. Key Words: Combat, Trauma, Extremity, Infection. J Trauma. 2008;64:S239 S251. There are greater numbers of casualties surviving their combat-related injuries in part because of the use of body armor, better trained combat medics and corpsmen providing care at the point of injury, rapid evacuation of the wounded to medical care, and the application of forward surgical assets. These advances have not, however, changed the injury patterns seen, and there has in particular been no appreciable change in the percentage of injuries that are orthopedic in nature among US military personnel. From World War I to operations in Somalia approximately 65% of the total number of injuries suffered by casualties were orthopedic. 1 This has remained true in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (OEF), during the early stages of the conflict as well as Submitted for publication November 29, 2007. Accepted for publication November 30, 2007. Copyright 2008 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins From the Brooke Army Medical Center (C.K.M., J.R.F.), Fort Sam Houston, Texas; William Beaumont Army Medical Center (J.R.H.), Fort Bliss, Texas; University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (J.S.S.), Cincinnati, Ohio; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (J.J.K., R.C.A.), Bethesda, Maryland and Washington, DC; and University of Missouri- Columbia School of Medicine (J.H.C.), Columbia, Missouri. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the US Government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties and, as such, there is no copyright to be transferred. Address for reprints: Clinton K. Murray, MD, MAJ, MC, USA, Infectious Disease Service (MCHE-MDI), Brooke Army Medical Center, 3851 Roger Brooke Drive, Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234; email: Clinton.Murray@amedd. army.mil. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318163cd14 during stability operations. 2 4 An evaluation of the Joint Theater Trauma Registry from October 2001 to January 2005 revealed 1,281 soldiers with 3,575 extremity combat wounds. 5 Of these wounds, 53% were penetrating soft-tissue wounds. There was a relatively even distribution between the upper and lower extremities, with hand trauma representing 36% of upper extremity injuries and tibia and fibula injuries 48% of lower extremity injuries. Despite our extensive knowledge of wound patterns, the infectious complications and their associated outcomes of the war wounded during OIF and OEF are not currently well described. Infectious complications of extremity injuries are often associated with comorbidities and are reflective of the degree of injury. 6 Military personnel are typically young without comorbidities, therefore the injury pattern has a great ability to predict complications. Gustilo and Anderson 7 classified open fractures into three types. Type I fractures are defined as those with a laceration of less than 1 cm with minimal soft tissue damage and no gross contamination. Type II fractures have lacerations of greater than 1 cm with moderate soft tissue damage. Type III fractures are high-energy injuries typically with bone comminution or loss. There are three subtypes of III: IIIa, characterized by extensive soft tissue injury but with adequate soft tissue coverage; IIIb, which includes extensive soft tissue injury along with bone exposure requiring soft tissue coverage; and IIIc, which has extensive soft tissue damage and the need for arterial repair. The Gustilo and Anderson classification system correlates relatively well with infectious complications in civilian extremity trauma. 8 10 The percentage of patients who develop infection is approximately 0% to 2% in type I, 2% to S239

5% in type II, 5% to 10% in type IIIa, 10% to 50% in type IIIb, and 25% to 50% in type IIIc. Although type III tibial fractures typically have the highest infection rates (between 6% and 39%), the amputation rate with these injuries has historically been less than 10%. 11 14 The typical infecting bacteria of open fractures include gram-positive staphylococci and gram-negative rods. 7,8,15 17 Early and aggressive management of these extremity wounds starting with interventions near the battlefield have resulted in improved outcomes. Although wound and bone infections remain an important source of morbidity, the total number of infectious complications in OIF and OEF is not currently available. 18 At the time of injury in a combat zone, the bacteria contaminating the wound are typically grampositive in nature with no resistant gram-negative bacteria. 2 However, during care further in the evacuation chain, more resistant gram-negative pathogens are recovered, likely influenced by the administration of broad spectrum systemic antibiotic prophylaxis and nosocomial transmission. 19 Among OEF evacuees with orthopedic injuries admitted to a military treatment facility between 2001 and 2003, 2 of 52 casualties had infectious complications. 20 One patient was reported to be infected with Pseudomonas spp. and the other with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Acinetobcter spp. Johnson et al. 21 assessed 62 open tibial fractures admitted to a single US military hospital between March 2003 and September 2006. Forty patients met inclusion criteria as type III diaphyseal tibial fractures of which 35 were included in analysis. Twenty-seven of these 35 patients had at least one organism present from initial deep wound cultures taken at admission. All patients were treated for infection, typically osteomyelitis based upon clinical impression of the wound. Acinetobacter spp., Enterobacter spp., and P. aeruginosa were the most commonly recovered bacteria. None of the initially recovered gram-negative bacteria were cultured again after being treated for a deep infection or osteomyelitis, although many patients required a repeat operation because of nonunion. Staphylococcal organisms were found in every wound at the time of repeat operation along with P. aeruginosa in three samples. Five of 35 patients ultimately required limb amputation with infectious complications cited as the reason in four. A retrospective study 22 from February 2003 through August 2006 at a single US military hospital revealed 2,854 admissions among OIF and OEF veterans of which 664 were admitted to the orthopedic service with a total of 103 initial admissions with a diagnosis of osteomyelitis. There was a two to one ratio of lower to upper extremity injuries having osteomyelitis. Eighty-four (83%) of these patients did not relapse during a follow-up that ranged from 2 weeks to 36 months (median, 16 months). Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were more likely to be isolated during an original episode than at recurrence, whereas gram-positive cocci were significantly more likely to be cultured during recurrences. The current treatment of extremity injuries whether in the civilian community or in the military setting is to prevent infection, promote fracture healing, and restore function. Traditional civilian management includes wound debridement and irrigation, initial stabilization, tetanus prophylaxis, systemic antimicrobial therapy, timely wound closure, thorough rehabilitation, and appropriate follow up. Certain adjuvants including local antibiotic therapy, open wound management, flap closure, and bone grafting are also implemented. The management of combat casualties is more complicated because of the mechanisms of injury including high-energy explosive devices resulting in extensive contamination, patients being evacuated through multiple levels of medical care, and variability in the timing of these evacuations. In this review, we provide evidence-based recommendations from systematic review of military and civilian data to optimize the varying management strategies of open fractures. We emphasize utility of microbial culture, antimicrobial therapy, irrigation fluid and techniques, timing of operative procedures, fixation, antibiotic beads, wound closure, and wound coverage with negative pressure wound therapy. Utility of Pre- and Postdebridement Culture Studies assessing the utility of cultures obtained from combat casualties at the time of injury are limited. An assessment of cultures in 30 marines with 63 extremity injuries during the Vietnam War revealed a mixture of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria at the time of injury. 23 The bacteria recovered from the wounds during the 5 days after injury transitioned in character to primarily gram-negative rods. Although there was not a description of infection versus colonization among the marines wound cultures, 8 of 12 bacteremic patients had matching wound cultures. There is only one report of wound cultures from casualties at the time of injury in OIF. Fifteen of 24 extremity injuries revealed a predominance of gram-positive bacteria including occasional MRSA, but recovered no multidrugresistant gram-negative bacteria. 2 These patients were not followed throughout the evacuation chain, thus the implication of the cultures cannot be determined. Patients present at US military hospitals with a much higher percentage of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. It is remarkable that gram-positive pathogens are often found later in a patient s hospital course and typically after eradicating their initial colonization or infection with gram-negative pathogens. 21 It is not clear if these gram-positive bacteria were the same pathogens initially seen at the time of injury or reflective of nosocomial transmission. Available civilian data supports similar findings with gram-positive bacteria predominating at the time of injury and a transition to gram-negative bacteria causing ultimate infection. Empiric therapy can modify the bacteria recovered. 16,17 Pre- or postdebridement cultures do not appear to be predictive of infection. In one report of civilian extremity injuries, 119 of 225 patients had positive wound S240 March Supplement 2008

Infections of Combat Casualties Extremity cultures of which only 8% of predebridement cultures identified the causes of subsequent infections. Conversely, 7% of those with negative cultures went on to develop infection. 16 Only 22% of the time did the predebridement culture grow the eventual infecting organism. Of postdebridement cultures, only 32 of 118 were positive, with nine patients with positive cultures eventually becoming infected. Ten of 86 patients with negative postdebridement cultures became infected. Another study revealed that 76% of initial wound cultures were negative whereas the other 24% grew skin flora. 24 A total of 6% (7 of 117) of injuries became infected with five of the seven not having demonstrated growth on these initial cultures. None of the bacteria noted on initial culture were the organisms ultimately recovered from the infected wounds. Additional studies have revealed that positive culture before surgery and at the time of surgery might be predictive of subsequent infection but not of the infecting species, which typically are nosocomial pathogens. 17 In addition, the choice of antimicrobial agent can result in infections with bacteria that escape the initial spectrum of activity of prescribed antimicrobials used for prophylaxis. 9,17 Based upon available literature regarding combat-related and civilian open fractures, routine collection of pre- or postdebridement cultures is not recommended at any level of care for combat-related extremity injuries (EII) (grading outlined in this supplement of Journal of Trauma: Guidelines for the Prevention of Infection After Combat-Related Injuries ). If wound surveillance cultures are obtained at Level IV or V medical care as part of infection control procedures, these findings should not be used as part of clinical decision making. Only cultures obtained because of concern for an ongoing wound infection systemic signs or symptoms of infection, appearance of wound, persistently elevated inflammatory markers, or concerning radiographic imaging studies should be used to make clinical decisions. Antibiotics The administration of antimicrobial agents at the time of injury is considered standard of care, however, the best agent to use and their duration of use is not clearly defined. There have been no combat associated randomized controlled trials of antimicrobials, however, there are a number of expert opinion publications on the agents of choice. A panel of military trauma experts published a list of antibiotics that were recommended as part of tactical combat care or care provided at the time of injury. 25,26 The International Committee of the Red Cross recommends penicillin for compound fractures, amputations, and major soft tissue wounds in an intravenous form for 48 hours and then orally until delayed primary closure. 27 The recommended duration is for a total of 5 days. 27 If redebridement is performed instead of delayed primary closure, antibiotics should be stopped if there are no signs of infection or local inflammation. If patients present after 72 hours or are injured as a result of antipersonnel land mines, then the addition of metronidazole in an intravenous form for 48 hours followed by oral therapy until delayed primary closure is suggested. The use of antibiotics in the management of open fractures in the civilian community has been extensively analyzed. A Cochrane review published in 2004 revealed that antibiotics had a protective effect against early infection compared with no antibiotics (relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 0.63; absolute risk reduction of 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04 0.12 and number needed to treat 13; 95% CI, 8 25). 28 This effect was, however, solely because of the high activity of -lactams against streptococci and staphylococci. A literature review by the EAST practice management guidelines working group scored the available literature and concluded that antibiotics were useful but that further work was needed especially with regard to type IIIb fractures. 29 The most recent review of the literature was performed by the Surgical Infection Society. That group concluded that the current standard of care for implementation of antibiotic prophylaxis is based on very limited data with no direct evidence in some cases. 30 In addition, the studies suffered from methodological and statistical flaws and include many older publications not reflective of the current strategies in today s healthcare environment. The studies also do not adequately reflect the bacterial resistance or the available antimicrobial agents used today. One of the major areas of discussion includes which antibiotic is to be used and the role of additional gramnegative coverage at the time of injury. Given the multidrugresistant nature of the gram-negative bacteria found to be subsequently infecting combat casualties injuries after broad spectrum regimens are used (e.g., cefazolin and levofloxacin), it is currently not clear if the use of fluoroquinolones with enhanced gram-negative activity or aminoglycosides are resulting in the selection of these resistant pathogens. Worse yet, this practice may be leading to the development of resistance. 9,30,31 Patzakis et al. 9,31 have published various assessments of cephalosporins, penicillins, aminoglycosides, and ciprofloxacin alone or in combination in various randomized controlled trials. Overall, cephalosporins alone performed as well as cephalosporins or penicillin in combination with aminoglycosides. 9,31 Ciprofloxacin monotherapy had higher failure rates in comparison to cephalosporin in combination with an aminoglycoside for type III fractures. 32 Overall, it is unclear if additional gram-negative coverage is required or if it is potentially complicating wound care. Although not rigorously evaluated, from data derived from the Yom Kippur War, one group proposed that overly broad spectrum antimicrobial agents had led to the development of infections with resistant bacteria. 33 Those authors proposed that the severity of combat trauma wounds and contamination leads toward the temptations to sterilize the wound with massive doses of antibiotics and favors a false security with less reliance on good surgical technique. 33 Other controversial issues include the use of penicillin in addition to standard therapy for open fractures to prevent S241

clostridial infections. Of increasing concern is the rise in in vitro resistance to penicillin of the etiologic agents, which cause gas gangrene and limited animal data revealing no improved outcome for gas gangrene in comparison to untreated controls. 34 Although the timing of antibiotics has not been rigorously studied, one study noted a higher infection rate (7.4%, 49 of 661 patients) if antibiotics were given after 3 hours versus a lower infection rate (4.7%, 17 of 364) when antibiotics were given within 3 hours. 9 This 3-hour window was supported during the Falklands Campaign in 1982. 35 Although the number of type III injuries was not reported, 0 of 17 patients with extremity injuries who received antibiotics within 3 hours became infected. In contrast, 6 of 18 casualties who received antibiotic between 4 and 9 hours after injury became infected. The ideal duration of antibiotics is also not currently clear. Prospective studies have revealed therapy as short as 1 day may be as effective as the traditionally recommended 5 days of therapy. 36 38 There is data suggesting that prolonged courses of antibiotics are associated with resistant systemic infection. 39,40 Further assessments of antimicrobial agents also need to be conducted to determine the potential adverse effect of antimicrobial therapy on wound healing. Some agents have effects on cartilage, fracture healing, and inhibitory effects on bone in vitro. 41 45 Overall, the current literature predominately includes data from open fractures secondary to low-velocity gunshot wounds. In that population, a first-generation cephalosporin (or similar agent active against gram-positive bacteria) is administered for 24 72 hours perioperatively in patients with type I and II fractures. Given the concern for the development of infections with resistant bacteria and the role that drug pressure on selection of resistant pathogens, it is discouraged to provide enhanced gram-negative coverage (DII). At Level I/IIa medical care in the combat zone early use of cefazolin or another intravenous first generation cephalosporin should be given for all extremity injuries (AII) (Table 1), although substitutions should be considered if other injuries including central nervous system or abdominal/thoracic injury necessitate alternative agents with enhanced gramnegative and anaerobic activity. Enhanced gram-negative therapy even for type III fractures is discouraged (DII) (Table 1). At Level IV/V medical care, antibiotics should include those agents started earlier in the evacuation chain but these should be stopped after 24 72 hours if there is not evidence of infection upon evaluation of the wound. Overall, Level I/IIa/ IIb/III should emphasize wound preemptive therapy whereas Level IV/V should be treating only infected wounds and using periprocedure antibiotics as part of routine care. There is also no evidence to support continuing antibiotics during evacuation or continuing antibiotics until the wound is covered or until all drains are removed. Irrigation A hallmark of combat casualty wound management is aggressive surgical debridement and wound irrigation. Four major areas of wound irrigation are typically debated: (1) type of fluid, (2) amount of fluid, (3) method of fluid delivery, and (4) additives. At this time there are no randomized controlled studies or well-characterized outcome data of wound irrigation among combat casualties. Although not the primary focus of a recent study evaluating negative wound pressure wound therapy or vacuum-assisted closure (VAC, KCI, San Antonio, TX) performed on casualties in Iraq, the use of pulsatile jet irrigation with at least 3 L of saline was part of the very successful management strategies that improved combat-related injury infection rate. 46 There has been one recent review of the literature assessing irrigation of wounds in open fractures that highlights the studies addressing type of fluid, additives, and method of delivery. 47 Overall, normal saline was recommended for irrigation with limited use of additives and the use of low-pressure irrigation. Within the civilian literature, a recently published multicenter, prospective, randomized trial undertaken at two urban and suburban community Level I trauma hospitals compared normal saline versus tap water for simple lacerations. 48 Of the 300 subjects who received tap water, 12 (4%) had wound infections compared with 11 (3.3%) of the 334 subjects in the saline group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.5 2.7). In another study, the utility of irrigation fluid with bacitracin solution or nonsterile castile soap solution was compared in open fractures. 49 The volume of fluid included the traditionally recommended 3 L for type I fractures, 6 L for type II fractures, and 9 L for type III fractures. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of infections or bone healing, but the group that received bacitractin had more wound healing complications. There are no definitive trials assessing the quantity of fluid or method of delivery to adequately remove contamination from a wound. An intriguing animal model compared varying volumes of normal saline irrigation utilizing bulb syringe versus pulsed lavage on reducing wound bacterial counts. 50 Pulsed lavage irrigation with 3 L resulted in a similar reduction of bacteria as irrigation with 9 L with a bulb syringe. Although high pressure pulsatile lavage might appear to be superior for clearing bacteria from a wound, animal data indicates that pulsative lavage might push bacteria deeper into wounds. 51 In addition, high pressure pulsed lavage was shown to be associated with macroscopic bone and soft tissue damage. 52,53 Although there is no clear definition of high pressure irrigation, generally high pressure flow is between 35 and 70 PSI whereas low pressure is between 1 and 15 PSI. Bulb syringe has a pressure of 2 PSI while squeezing a 250-mL bottle with a perforated cap delivers 4.5 PSI. Finally, timing of irrigation might influence outcome. One study found that at 3 hours after injury, low and high pressure pulsatile lavage were both effective at preventing S242 March Supplement 2008

Infections of Combat Casualties Extremity Table 1 Evidence-Based Recommendations of the Management of Combat-Related Infections of Extremity Injuries Level I/IIa Level IIb/III Level IV Level V Comments Utility of pre- and postdebridement culture Antibiotic agent AI 1st generation cephalosporin EII EII EII EII Management should not be based upon surveillance cultures at Level IV, V DIII Enhanced gramnegative activity Antibiotic timing AII Initiate therapy within 3 hours of injury Antibiotic duration BII Preemptive therapy for 1 3 days and reassess wound Irrigation-type of fluid Irrigation-volume of fluid Irrigation-delivery methods AI Irrigate wound with available fluid (NS, LR or potable water) BIII Remove gross contamination BII Irrigate with bulb syringe or equivalent technique AI 1st generation cephalosporin DIII Enhanced gramnegative activity AII Initiate therapy within 3 hours of injury BII Preemptive therapy for 1 3 days and reassess wound AI Irrigate wound with available fluid (NS, LR or potable water) BIII 3L-type I 6L-type II 9L-type III BIII Low pressure irrigation DII Higher pressure irrigation AI 1st generation cephalosporin perioperatively AI Initiate therapy 0.5 1 hour prior to procedures AI Perioperative not to exceed 24 hours AI Irrigate wound with available fluid (NS or LR) BIII 3L-type I 6L-type II 9Ltype III AI 1st generation cephalosporin perioperatively AI Initiate therapy 0.5 1 hour prior to procedures AI Perioperative not to exceed 24 hours AI Irrigate wound with available fluid (NS or LR) BIII 3L-type I 6L-type II 9Ltype III BIII Low pressure irrigation BIII Low pressure irrigation DII Higher pressure irrigation Irrigation-additives DII DII DII DII N/A N/A N/A Timing of evacuation Timing of operative procedure Immediate primary closure BII Evacuation to surgical evaluation within 6 hours N/A CIII Surgery performed within 6 hours N/A N/A DII Higher pressure irrigation Level I/IIa/IIb/III-wound preemptive therapy Level IV/IV-treat infected wounds Avoid use of vancomycin Avoid broad spectrum antibiotics Level IV and V-treat infections and use standard of care perioperative antibiotic recommendations At initial damage control surgery or if surgery is delayed No evidence to continue antibiotics during evacuation if that occurs after initial 72 hours and there is no evidence of infection. No need to continue antibiotics awaiting wound closure N/A EII N/A N/A No primary closure during transport or evacuation Wound VAC N/A BII (D, CNE) CIII (R, CE) CIII BII VAC studies are underway to determine the safety and efficacy for air evacuation S243

Table 1 Evidence-Based Recommendations of the Management of Combat-Related Infections of Extremity Injuries (continued) Level I/IIa Level IIb/III Level IV Level V Comments Fixation N/A AII External fixation See text See text Antibiotic beads N/A B-II (D, CNE) B-II B-II N/A N/A Wound characteristics: Entrance/exit wound size ( 2 cm) No high risk cause such as mines No bone or joint involvement No breach of pleura or peritoneum No major vascular injury No major vascular injury BII One dose of 1st generation cephalosporin preemptive therapy BII One dose of 1st generation cephalosporin preemptive therapy Retained extremity metal fragment Levels of care: see Epidemiology of Infections Associated With Combat-Related Injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan in this J Trauma supplement for definitions. Evidence grade: strength of recommendation A, good evidence to support a recommendation for use; B, moderate evidence to support a recommendation for use; C, poor evidence to support a recommendation for or against use; D, moderate evidence to support recommendation against use; E, good evidence to support a recommendation against use. Quality of evidence: I, evidence from at least one properly randomized controlled trial (RCT); II, evidence from at least one well-designed clinical trail without randomization or from cohort or case-controlled studies; III, expert opinion. Other factors might influence recommendations and if the letter is included then it applies to those patient populations R applies during periods of rapid evacuation (stay 72 hours), D applies during period of delayed evacuation (stay 72 hours), CE applies to casualty that will be evacuated from the combat zone, CNE applies to casualty that will not be evacuated from the combat zone. LR, lactate ringers; NS, normal saline; NA, not applicable; VAC, vacuum-assisted closure. wound infection but at 6 hours only high pressure pulsatile lavage was effective. 52 Although varying methods may have different abilities to irrigate a wound, the volume of fluid may be able to overcome the method used. A recent publication in an animal model revealed that irrigation within 3 hours decreased bacteria counts by 70% in contrast to 52% if irrigation was delayed to 6 hours or 37% if delayed to 12 hours. 54 Based upon the currently available data, the traditional volumes (BIII) should be used to irrigate a wound with normal saline or lactated ringers (AI) while avoiding the use of additives to the fluid (DII) (Table 1). Potable water if the others fluids are not available is adequate (AI). The utility of high pressure pulsatile lavage needs further assessment and is not recommended (DII) whereas low pressure lavage is recommended (BII). Timing of Operative Procedure Traditionally it has been recommended that open fractures undergo operative procedures within 6 hours of injury. The time to evacuation in Iraq and Afghanistan to initial surgical care has not been well characterized but appears to occur within an hour, but can be substantially delayed because of the environmental and combat conditions. Historically, evacuation times have continued to improve with World War II evacuations taking approximately 11 hours, decreasing to 4 hours during the Korean War and 3 hours during the Vietnam War. 55 57 Data assessing outcomes based on time to procedures is limited for combat casualties. Among those with extremity injuries during the Falkland Campaign there were two septic patients among twenty who underwent surgery within 6 hours in contrast to 7 of the 29 patients treated after 6 hours. Nine of those 29 went to surgery after 15 hours, three of whom became septic. 35 The US military experience in Somalia documented that casualties spent prolonged periods on the battlefield before evacuation and when they reached military treatment facilities in the combat zone, the resulting mass casualty situation overwhelmed the surgeons ability to take all patients into the operating room. 58 Fourteen of the 16 casualties that developed infection were treated either outside of Somalia or were treated after 6 hours but long-term infectious outcomes are not described. There are a number of publications addressing time to surgery in the civilian trauma literature. A retrospective analysis of open tibia and femur fractures revealed no difference in outcome between those treated within 6 hours and those treated later. However, that study excluded gun shot injuries. 59 Another evaluation of type IIIa fractures revealed 1 of 16 became infected if treated within 6 hours and 2 of 41 became infected when treated between 7 and 24 hours. An assessment of open tibial fractures from the Australian outback revealed no difference in infection rate if therapy was performed within 6 hours or after 6 hours (2 of 12 and 4 of 36, respectively). 60 Ten of the 12 fractures treated within 6 hours and 25 of the 36 treated after 6 hours were type IIIa or IIIb. S244 March Supplement 2008

Infections of Combat Casualties Extremity In an attempt to control for severity of injury and other factors that might bias the results, a larger retrospective study controlling for type of injury revealed similar infection rates with 53 infections in 184 patients treated within 6 hours and 51 infections in 199 patients treated after 6 hours. 61 Another larger study assessing the impact of various parameters revealed that type of fracture had a greater impact on infection than timing to procedure. 62 These findings have been supported in children and in other large retrospective studies. 63,64 Although data supports that delayed surgical procedures may be acceptable, these studies are flawed in their retrospective nature and lack of military type high-energy injuries (CIII). Therefore, patients should be evacuated to surgical care as soon as possible based upon a thorough risk benefit analysis of the combat environment with a goal of initial evaluation by a surgeon within 6 hours (BII). Coverage and Closure of Wounds It is currently recommended that closure of wounds in combat environments be delayed because of the high contamination rate and the risk of Clostridium infection. 27 This is based upon lessons learned during the World Wars. 65 The most recent publication 46 addressing this approach was described for non-us casualties receiving care at a combat support hospital in Iraq with the use of VAC after surgical debridement for 2 to 4 days. There were no infections with this approach among 88 wounds in 77 Iraqi patients. The mean number of operations to wound closure was two and the mean time from injury to wound closure was 4 days. A short follow-up time limits the conclusions of the study but the findings are remarkable given the stated infection rate of approximately 80% before instituting these management strategies. There have been an increased number of civilian trauma centers evaluating early closure of wounds because of the findings that nosocomial bacteria are typically infecting wounds. A retrospective evaluation of early closure of wounds after standard irrigation and antibiotics revealed no difference in immediate closure versus those with secondlook closures or delayed primary closure. 66 Only 1 of 19 type IIIa fractures developed an infection after immediate primary closure in contrast to zero of five that underwent delayed primary closure. Another study evaluating type IIIb and IIIc fractures revealed 8 of 84 patients developed deep bone infection. 67 One of the 33 patients that underwent immediate closure ( 24 hours) developed a deep infection, 3 of the 30 treated with early closure ( 24, 72 hours) and 6 of 21 with late closure ( 72 hours) who developed deep infection. Wound coverage with negative pressure wound therapy has become a standard of care in many facilities. A prospective randomized study 68 evaluating the use of negative pressure wound therapy in 20 calcaneous fractures, 4 pilon fractures, and 20 tibial plateau fractures found no infectious differences between negative pressure wound therapy and standard wound care. An evaluation of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of lower extremity wounds revealed improved healing with decreased bacterial colony counts. 69 An interesting prospective study 70 looked at bacterial density among patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional moist gauze therapy. The density of nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli significantly decreased in the negative pressure wound therapy treated wounds in contrast to S. aurues, which significantly increased in negative pressure wound therapy treated wounds. Another study 71 of wound care without associated open fractures, revealed that bacterial burden during VAC use increased during therapy but was not predictive of poor wound healing. An animal trauma study performed at the US Army Institute of Surgical Research revealed substantial decrease in Pseudomonas in wounds with VAC usage in comparison to traditional wet to dry dressing changes. Currently, there is data supporting early closure of open fractures sustained in the civilian setting, including type III fractures. However, given the fact that there have been no assessments performed in combat-related injuries, early closure of open fracture wounds cannot be recommended (EII) (Table 1). Negative pressure wound therapy appears very effective in promoting healing and preventing infectious complications but the data currently is inadequate especially during air evacuations. The use of silver impregnated negative pressure wound therapy devices has not been adequately studied to date. Negative pressure wound therapy is recommended for casualties not evacuated or those with delayed evacuation (BII) but it is unclear if it is to be used in patients being evacuated rapidly out of theater (CIII) (Table 1). Fixation Fixation of open fractures has a number of beneficial effects including protecting against further damage of soft tissue, improved wound care and tissue healing and possibly reducing infection despite the presence of foreign material. 72 There are a number of methods used for bony stabilization, although internal fixation has traditionally been contraindicated in war surgery. 1,27 Methods include plaster casting to prevent movement and external fixation. Trials comparing these techniques have not been reported in combat casualties. Based upon an analysis of the conflict in Somalia, external fixation was the preferred stabilization method. 73 External fixation has been used in many instances with success in combat-related injuries, however, no trials have been performed. 20,74 80 Two reviews assessing the use of fixation in the management of war wounds have been published emphasizing the role of external fixation. 81,82 Recently, an evaluation of the complications of fixation during OIF reported a high rate of early complications with external fixation and cautioned against its universal acceptance. 83 In addition to improving pain control and facilitating transportation of wounded patients with fractured extremities, temporary external fixation (TEF) in combat-related injuries may provide systemic benefits similar to those reported in S245

multiply injured civilian patients undergoing damage control orthopedics. 84,85 Although debridement and immediate internal fixation appears to be an increasing practice preference in the civilian literature, it is still considered ill-advised in combat-related injuries. 86 92 In fact, urgent or emergent internal fixation of femoral neck fractures and talar neck fractures has been called into question in civilian trauma care. Delay of treatment for femoral neck fractures greater than 48 hours in one recent publication of 102 fractures in young adults was not correlated with osteonecrosis. 93 Similarly, delayed treatment of talar neck fractures does not seem to correlate with osteonecrosis. 94 96 Frequently, TEF is converted to definitive internal fixation in civilian trauma care. Great care should be taken when extrapolating this data to combat-related injuries, since 75% of combat injuries are secondary to explosive munitions. 5 Significantly increased infectious complications have been reported with conversion of femur external fixation to intramedullary nails after 14 days in some series. 97 An evidence based review of the literature demonstrated that plausible infection rates for conversion of external fixation to intramedullary nails in femurs and tibias were 3.6% (95% CI, 1.8% 7.4%) and 9% (95% CI, 7% 12%), respectively. This review also found that limiting the duration of external fixation for the tibia to 28 days decreased the infection rate by 83% (95% CI, 62% 93%). 98 A pin tract infection is a significant predictor of subsequent deep infection with internal fixation. 99 Internal fixation of femur fractures primarily involves intramedullary nailing for the past 20 years in the United States with union rates of 98% to 99% and infection rates around 1%. 100,101 Reaming femur fractures has demonstrated clear benefits in decreasing rates of nonunion and implant failure. 102,103 The safety of reaming before intramedullary nailing in open femur fractures has also been demonstrated. 86,89 91 Immediate reamed intramedullary nailing of open femur fractures demonstrates infection rates of 1.8% to 5%. 86 91 Most infections in open femur fractures occur in type III open injuries. 86,90 In one series, 11% of type IIIb open fractures became infected and accounted for all the infections in the entire series. 90 Eighty percent of the infections reported in another series were in type III open injuries. 86 Multivariate analysis of this series by Noumi et al. 86 revealed that only Gustilo type was significantly associated with infection. Factors such as age, timing of debridement, and reaming did not affect infection rates. 86 Based upon available literature on femur fractures, temporary spanning external fixation should be placed at Level IIb III medical facilities (AII). Conversion to definitive fixation at Level IV remains controversial. Delayed conversion of external fixation to a reamed, locked intramedullary nail can be performed at Level V facilities after appropriate wound management. Open tibia fractures typically have higher infection rates than open femur fractures when converted to internal fixation. 88,98 Despite these moderate infection rates, the intramedullary nailing of open tibia fractures after external fixation has demonstrated significantly faster union and greater range of motion with less malunion and shortening compared with casting in one randomized trial. 104 Immediate traditional plate fixation of open tibial shaft fractures has an unacceptably high osteomyelitis rate compared with external fixation (19% vs. 3%). 105 108 Definitive management of open tibia fractures with traditional external fixation (unilateral-type constructs) has mixed results in the literature. Some series report good results with this type of external fixation. 108,109 However, one series 110 reported a 43% pin sepsis rate and a 38% incidence of malalignment greater than 5 degrees. Plate and screw fixation for open proximal and distal periarticular fractures has shown acceptable outcomes and risks of infection with careful management of the associated soft tissue. 111,112 Much of the recent civilian trauma literature supports immediate nailing of open tibia fractures because of fewer re-operations and better alignment compared with external fixation. 113 116 In contrast, some studies continue to demonstrate worrisome infection rates, as high as 12.5% to 35% in type IIIb open injuries. 105,107,115,117 Reaming does not seem to increase the infection rate in open tibia fractures while demonstrating the benefits of fewer nonunions and hardware failures. 103,105,113,114,116,118 Circular external fixation has been used in several small series with favorable results in type III open injuries of the tibia in military conflicts. 5,119 123 A series of 24 patients with combat-related type III open tibia fractures were treated with circular (Ilizarov) external fixation. One of these patients went on to amputation (4.2%) and another developed a deep infection (4.2%). 123 Moreover, a recent review of 38 severe open tibia fractures sustained during OIF and OEF and treated in circular fixators to completion at a military hospital, showed a moderate (7.9%) deep infection rate and a 97% union rate with the benefit of no retained hardware (personal communication JJK and RCA). In contrast, a recent review of 35 tibia fractures from OIF and OEF treated at a single institution with intramedullary nailing demonstrated an overall infection rate of 17.9% although this study included deep wound infections and osteomyelitis. 119 All of the infections occurred in type III open injuries, but these type III fractures made up 80% of all the tibia fractures in this series. External fixation is appropriate at Levels IIb to III (AII). Conversion to definitive fixation at Level IV remains controversial. At Level V, reamed, intramedullary nailing can be performed safely in selected patients with a lesser soft tissue injury. For type III open injuries, circular external fixation has been shown to have lower deep infection rates. Open fractures of the humerus and forearm seem to be best managed with plate fixation. Immediate plate fixation of open humerus fractures has demonstrated safety and efficacy. 124 There is a subset of shotgun related and highenergy gunshot humerus fractures that have been successfully S246 March Supplement 2008

Infections of Combat Casualties Extremity managed with external fixation. 125,126 One series of soldiers with high-energy gunshot fractures to the humerus showed a very low infection rate when managed with external fixation. 74 Another war-related series supported the use of a functional brace over external fixation. 127 Low-energy gunshot fractures can also be effectively managed with a fracture brace. 128 For those humerus fractures in which surgical fixation is desired, there is some enthusiasm for nailing, but plating demonstrates an overall lower complication rate. 129 132 Open forearm fractures in several series show safe and effective management with immediate plate fixation. 133 135 Some high-energy open fractures of the upper extremity have reasonable results when a staged protocol is used with initial TEF. 136,137 The current literature supports the use of temporary spanning external fixation or splint immobilization placed at Level I/II/III (BII) and transition to open plate and screw osteosynthesis for most open humerus and forearm fractures after soft tissue stabilization and closure (BII). Antibiotic Beads The utility of antibiotic impregnated beads has not been adequately evaluated in combat casualties but they are widely used as part of civilian care. Antibiotic agents used in impregnated beads need to be heat-stable and active against the pathogens associated with infections. Traditionally, aminoglycosides and vancomycin have been used. However, because of concerns over the development of vancomycin resistance, one of the most active gram-positive agents available for systemic infection, this drug is typically not used. Antibiotic impregnated beads develop very high local drug levels but maintain low systemic concentrations. 138 Certain key antimicrobial agents, such as colistemethate, that might be useful in the multidrugresistant pathogens seen among combat casualties do not appear to be heat stable. Although civilian data supports the use of aminoglycoside impregnated beads in the treatment of open fractures, many of the studies are limited by their retrospective nature or small sample size. In a retrospective evaluation of tobramycin impregnated beads, those patients who received the beads had a lower infection rate (31 of 845 patients) in contrast to those without beads (29 of 240). 139 This was especially true for type IIIb and IIIc fractures. The patients with impregnated beads were closed earlier introducing a potential bias. A prospective randomized trial compared local administration of tobramycin eluting beads to systemic antimicrobial therapy with a 1st generation cephalosporin for type II, IIIa, and IIIb fractures until wound closure. There was no difference in infection rates between the two arms of the study (two infections in 24 treated with local therapy and two infections of 38 treated with systemic). 140 The use of antibiotic bead pouches has also been retrospectively assessed in combination with intramedullary nails for type II, IIIa, and IIIb tibia fractures. Of 50 patients who received the antibiotic bead pouches in one study only two developed an infection in contrast to four infections in the 25 that did not receive the pouches. 141 The practical use of bead pouches during transport, with frequent serial debridements remains a difficult technical challenge. There is inadequate data for a firm recommendation in military populations to use or not use antibiotic impregnated beads in the combat zone but if patients are not being evacuated or have delayed evacuation in the combat zone it should be considered (BII) (Table 1). Additional Management Strategies Retained Fragments The source of wounds commonly seen in ground combat and stability operations can vary from gunshot, grenades including rocket propelled, mortar, landmines, bombs, and motor vehicle crashes. 5 Many of these weaponry systems can result in numerous fragments lodged into the body. Often, the sheer numbers of fragments are not amenable to complete removal. An assessment of 63 casualties with 866 fragments managed nonoperatively with antibiotics and dressings found the majority of casualties arrived 24 to 48 hours after injury and had between 2 and 20 wounds, although some had more than 50 wounds. 142 There were only two complications among the 63 casualties managed in this manner. Criteria for nonoperative management included soft tissue injuries only (no fractures, no major vascular involvement, and no break of pleura or peritoneum), wound entry/exit less than 2 cm in maximum dimension, wounds not frankly infected, and exclusion of mine wounds. Management included cleaning and dressing the wounds, administration of anti-tetanus immunoglobulin and toxoid, penicillin IM/IV for 1 day and then orally for the next 4 days. The two complications were superficial abscesses both patients recovered without further complications. One of the authors (CKM) treated approximately 100 patients in Iraq using similar criteria. They typically received a single dose of IV cefazolin and then 4 days of oral levofloxacin. Only one patient developed an abscess, likely because of the wounding location. In addition, the injury was likely heavily contaminated with fecal pathogens as the injury occurred in a portable latrine during a mortar attack. It is recommended that casualties with isolated retained metal fragments meeting the above criteria be treated with a single dose of intravenous first generation cephalosporin with clinical monitoring for evidence of infection (BII) (Table 1). Overview Open fractures are a challenge to manage especially in a combat environment with high-energy explosive injuries, high contamination rate, challenging environmental constraints, different levels of medical care, and varying evacuation procedures and times. The management of these combat-related wounds has not substantially changed during the last 50 years with early surgical debridement and stabilization, antibiotic ad- S247

ministration, and delayed primary closures. Although the civilian community has tried to advance the understanding of open fracture care during peace time, there are still many unanswered questions with regard to the optimal management of these casualties. Most of the recommendations for combatrelated infections are not supported by good cohort controlled studies much less randomized control trials and further efforts need to be made to answer many fundamental questions and establish best treatment strategies. This article addresses the data and recommendations for management of combat casualties through the various levels of current military medical care. REFERENCES 1. Weapons effects and parachute injuries. In: Emergency war surgery. 3rd US revision. Washington, DC: Borden Institute; 2004;1:1 1.4. 2. Murray CK, Roop SA, Hospenthal DR, et al. Bacteriology of war wounds at the time of injury. Mil Med. 2006;171:826 829. 3. Rush RM Jr, Stockmaster NR, Stinger HK, et al. Supporting the Global War on Terror: a tale of two campaigns featuring the 250th Forward Surgical Team (Airborne). Am J Surg. 2005;189:564 570; discussion 570. 4. Peoples GE, Gerlinger T, Craig R, et al. Combat casualties in Afghanistan cared for by a single Forward Surgical Team during the initial phases of Operation Enduring Freedom. Mil Med. 2005; 170:462 468. 5. Owens BD, Kragh JF Jr, Macaitis J, et al. Characterization of extremity wounds in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:254 257. 6. Bowen TR, Widmaier JC. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;205 211. 7. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976; 58:453 458. 8. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984;24:742 746. 9. Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Factors influencing infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;243:36 40. 10. Gustilo RB, Gruninger RP, Davis T. Classification of type III (severe) open fractures relative to treatment and results. Orthopedics. 1987;10:1781 1788. 11. Parrett BM, Matros E, Pribaz JJ, et al. Lower extremity trauma: trends in the management of soft-tissue reconstruction of open tibiafibula fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:1315 1322; discussion 1323 1314. 12. Rajasekaran S, Naresh Babu J, Dheenadhayalan J, et al. A score for predicting salvage and outcome in Gustilo type-iiia and type- IIIB open tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1351 1360. 13. Naique SB, Pearse M, Nanchahal J. Management of severe open tibial fractures: the need for combined orthopaedic and plastic surgical treatment in specialist centres. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88:351 357. 14. Giannoudis PV, Papakostidis C, Roberts C. A review of the management of open fractures of the tibia and femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:281 289. 15. Sen C, Eralp L, Gunes T, et al. An alternative method for the treatment of nonunion of the tibia with bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:783 789. 16. Lee J. Efficacy of cultures in the management of open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;339:71 75. 17. Carsenti-Etesse H, Doyon F, Desplaces N, et al. Epidemiology of bacterial infection during management of open leg fractures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;18:315 323. 18. Mazurek MT, Ficke JR. The scope of wounds encountered in casualties from the global war on terrorism: from the battlefield to the tertiary treatment facility. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006; 14:S18 S23. 19. Aronson NE, Sanders JW, Moran KA. In harm s way: infections in deployed American military forces. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43:1045 1051. 20. Lin DL, Kirk KL, Murphy KP, et al. Evaluation of orthopaedic injuries in Operation Enduring Freedom. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18:S48 S53. 21. Johnson EN, Burns TC, Hayda RA, et al. Infectious complications of open type III tibial fractures among combat casualties. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:409 415. 22. Yun HC, Branstetter JG, Murray CK. Osteomyelitis in military personnel wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. J Trauma. In press. 23. Tong MJ. Septic complications of war wounds. JAMA. 1972; 219:1044 1047. 24. Valenziano CP, Chattar-Cora D, O Neill A, et al. Efficacy of primary wound cultures in long bone open extremity fractures: are they of any value? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002;122:259 261. 25. Butler F, O Connor K. Antibiotics in tactical combat casualty care 2002. Mil Med. 2003;168:911 914. 26. Murray CK, Hospenthal DR, Holcomb JB. Antibiotics use and selection at the point of injury in tactical combat casualty care for casualties with penetrating abdominal injury, shock, or unable to tolerate an oral agent. J Special Op Med. 2005;5:56 61. 27. Dufour D, Jensen SK, Owen-Smith M, et al. Surgery for Victims of War. 2 nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Committee of the Red Cross; 1998. 28. Gosselin RA, Roberts I, Gillespie WJ. Antibiotics for preventing infection in open limb fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; 1:CD003764. 29. Luchetter FA, Bone LB, Born CT. EAST practice management guidelines work group: practice management guidelines for prophylactic antibiotic use in open fractures. Available at http:// wwwe.astorg/tpg/openfracpdf. Accessed September 21, 2007. 30. Hauser CJ, Adams CA Jr, Eachempati SR. Surgical infection society guideline: prophylactic antibiotic use in open fractures: an evidencebased guideline. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2006;7:379 405. 31. Patzakis MJ, Harvey JP Jr, Ivler D. The role of antibiotics in the management of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56:532 541. 32. Patzakis MJ, Bains RS, Lee J, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing single-agent antibiotic therapy, ciprofloxacin, to combination antibiotic therapy in open fracture wounds. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:529 533. 33. Klein RS, Berger SA, Yekutiel P. Wound infection during the Yom Kippur war: observations concerning antibiotic prophylaxis and therapy. Ann Surg. 1975;182:15 21. 34. Stevens DL, Maier KA, Laine BM, et al. Comparison of clindamycin, rifampin, tetracycline, metronidazole, and penicillin for efficacy in prevention of experimental gas gangrene due to Clostridium perfringens. J Infect Dis. 1987;155:220 228. 35. Jackson DS. Sepsis in soft tissue limbs wounds in soldiers injured during the Falklands Campaign 1982. J R Army Med Corps. 1984; 130:97 99. 36. Dellinger EP, Caplan ES, Weaver LD, et al. Duration of preventive antibiotic administration for open extremity fractures. Arch Surg. 1988;123:333 339. 37. Merritt K. Factors increasing the risk of infection in patients with open fractures. J Trauma. 1988;28:823 827. 38. Sloan JP, Dove AF, Maheson M, et al. Antibiotics in open fractures of the distal phalanx? J Hand Surg [Br]. 1987;12:123 124. S248 March Supplement 2008

Infections of Combat Casualties Extremity 39. Hoth JJ, Franklin GA, Stassen NA, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics adversely affect nosocomial pneumonia in trauma patients. J Trauma. 2003;55:249 254. 40. Velmahos GC, Toutouzas KG, Sarkisyan G, et al. Severe trauma is not an excuse for prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Surg. 2002; 137:537 541; discussion 541 532. 41. Christ W, Lehnert T, Ulbrich B. Specific toxicologic aspects of the quinolones. Rev Infect Dis. 1988;10(Suppl 1):S141 146. 42. Holtom PD, Pavkovic SA, Bravos PD, et al. Inhibitory effects of the quinolone antibiotics trovafloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin on osteoblastic cells in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:721 727. 43. Edin ML, Miclau T, Lester GE, et al. Effect of cefazolin and vancomycin on osteoblasts in vitro. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 333:245 251. 44. Miclau T, Edin ML, Lester GE, et al. Bone toxicity of locally applied aminoglycosides. J Orthop Trauma. 1995;9:401 406. 45. Huddleston PM, Steckelberg JM, Hanssen AD, et al. Ciprofloxacin inhibition of experimental fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:161 173. 46. Leininger BE, Rasmussen TE, Smith DL, et al. Experience with wound VAC and delayed primary closure of contaminated soft tissue injuries in Iraq. J Trauma. 2006;61:1207 1211. 47. Crowley DJ, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV. Irrigation of the wounds in open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:580 585. 48. Moscati RM, Mayrose J, Reardon RF, et al. A multicenter comparison of tap water versus sterile saline for wound irrigation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:404 409. 49. Anglen JO. Comparison of soap and antibiotic solutions for irrigation of lower-limb open fracture wounds. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1415 1422. 50. Svoboda SJ, Bice TG, Gooden HA, et al. Comparison of bulb syringe and pulsed lavage irrigation with use of a bioluminescent musculoskeletal wound model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88:2167 2174. 51. Hassinger SM, Harding G, Wongworawat MD. High-pressure pulsatile lavage propagates bacteria into soft tissue. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:27 31. 52. Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, et al. High and low pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated tibial fractures: an in vitro study of bacterial adherence and bone damage. J Orthop Trauma. 1999; 13:526 533. 53. Boyd JI III, Wongworawat MD. High-pressure pulsatile lavage causes soft tissue damage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:13 17. 54. Owens BD, Wenke JC. Early wound irrigation improves the ability to remove bacteria. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1723 1726. 55. Jacob E, Setterstrom JA. Infection in war wounds: experience in recent military conflicts and future considerations. Mil Med. 1989; 154:311 315. 56. Lindberg RB, Wetzler TF, Newton A, et al. The bacterial flora of the blood stream in the Korean battle casualty. Ann Surg. 1955; 141:366 368. 57. Hardaway RM III. Viet Nam wound analysis. J Trauma. 1978; 18:635 643. 58. Mabry RL, Holcomb JB, Baker AM, et al. United States Army Rangers in Somalia: an analysis of combat casualties on an urban battlefield. J Trauma. 2000;49:515 528; discussion 528 519. 59. Bednar DA, Parikh J. Effect of time delay from injury to primary management on the incidence of deep infection after open fractures of the lower extremities caused by blunt trauma in adults. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7:532 535. 60. Ashford RU, Mehta JA, Cripps R. Delayed presentation is no barrier to satisfactory outcome in the management of open tibial fractures. Injury. 2004;35:411 416. 61. Charalambous CP, Siddique I, Zenios M, et al. Early versus delayed surgical treatment of open tibial fractures: effect on the rates of infection and need of secondary surgical procedures to promote bone union. Injury. 2005;36:656 661. 62. Harley BJ, Beaupre LA, Jones CA, et al. The effect of time to definitive treatment on the rate of nonunion and infection in open fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:484 490. 63. Skaggs DL, Friend L, Alman B, et al. The effect of surgical delay on acute infection following 554 open fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:8 12. 64. Khatod M, Botte MJ, Hoyt DB, et al. Outcomes in open tibia fractures: relationship between delay in treatment and infection. J Trauma. 2003;55:949 954. 65. Lowry KF, Curtis GM. Delayed suture in the management of wounds; analysis of 721 traumatic wounds illustrating the influence of time interval in wound repair. Am J Surg. 1950;80:280 287. 66. DeLong WG Jr, Born CT, Wei SY, et al. Aggressive treatment of 119 open fracture wounds. J Trauma. 1999;46:1049 1054. 67. Gopal S, Majumder S, Batchelor AG, et al. Fix and flap: the radical orthopaedic and plastic treatment of severe open fractures of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:959 966. 68. Stannard JP, Robinson JT, Anderson ER, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high-energy trauma. J Trauma. 2006;60:1301 1306. 69. DeFranzo AJ, Argenta LC, Marks MW, et al. The use of vacuumassisted closure therapy for the treatment of lower-extremity wounds with exposed bone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1184 1191. 70. Moues CM, Vos MC, van den Bemd GJ, et al. Bacterial load in relation to vacuum-assisted closure wound therapy: a prospective randomized trial. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12:11 17. 71. Weed T, Ratliff C, Drake DB. Quantifying bacterial bioburden during negative pressure wound therapy: does the wound VAC enhance bacterial clearance? Ann Plast Surg. 2004;52:276 279; discussion 279 280. 72. Worlock P, Slack R, Harvey L, et al. The prevention of infection in open fractures: an experimental study of the effect of fracture stability. Injury. 1994;25:31 38. 73. McHenry T, Simmons S, Alitz C, et al. Forward surgical stabilization of penetrating lower extremity fractures: circular casting versus external fixation. Mil Med. 2001;166:791 795. 74. Zinman C, Norman D, Hamoud K, et al. External fixation for severe open fractures of the humerus caused by missiles. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:536 539. 75. Davis TP, Alexander BA, Lambert EW, et al. Distribution and care of shipboard blast injuries (USS Cole DDG-67). J Trauma. 2003; 55:1022 1027; discussion 1027 1028. 76. Beekley AC, Watts DM. Combat trauma experience with the United States Army 102nd Forward Surgical Team in Afghanistan. Am J Surg. 2004;187:652 654. 77. Cho JM, Jatoi I, Alarcon AS, et al. Operation Iraqi Freedom: surgical experience of the 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital. Mil Med. 2005;170:268 272. 78. Rich NM, Metz CW Jr, Hutton JE Jr, et al. Internal versus external fixation of fractures with concomitant vascular injuries in Vietnam. J Trauma. 1971;11:463 473. 79. Has B, Jovanovic S, Wertheimer B, et al. External fixation as a primary and definitive treatment of open limb fractures. Injury. 1995;26:245 248. 80. Dubravko H, Zarko R, Tomislav T, et al. External fixation in war trauma management of the extremities experience from the war in Croatia. J Trauma. 1994;37:831 834. 81. Coupland RM. War wounds of bones and external fixation. Injury. 1994;25:211 217. 82. Zinman C, Reis ND. External fixation in wartime limb surgery. Isr J Med Sci. 1984;20:308 310. 83. Clasper JC, Phillips SL. Early failure of external fixation in the management of war injuries. J R Army Med Corps. 2005;151:81 86. S249

84. Pape HC, Hildebrand F, Pertschy S, et al. Changes in the management of femoral shaft fractures in polytrauma patients: from early total care to damage control orthopedic surgery. J Trauma. 2002;53:452 461; discussion 461 452. 85. Scalea TM, Boswell SA, Scott JD, et al. External fixation as a bridge to intramedullary nailing for patients with multiple injuries and with femur fractures: damage control orthopedics. J Trauma. 2000;48:613 621; discussion 621 613. 86. Noumi T, Yokoyama K, Ohtsuka H, et al. Intramedullary nailing for open fractures of the femoral shaft: evaluation of contributing factors on deep infection and nonunion using multivariate analysis. Injury. 2005;36:1085 1093. 87. Grosse A, Christie J, Taglang G, et al. Open adult femoral shaft fracture treated by early intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:562 565. 88. Wu CC, Shih CH. Treatment of open femoral and tibial shaft fractures preliminary report on external fixation and secondary intramedullary nailing. J Formos Med Assoc. 1991;90:1179 1185. 89. O Brien PJ, Meek RN, Powell JN, et al. Primary intramedullary nailing of open femoral shaft fractures. J Trauma. 1991;31:113 116. 90. Brumback RJ, Ellison PS Jr, Poka A, et al. Intramedullary nailing of open fractures of the femoral shaft. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71:1324 1331. 91. Lhowe DW, Hansen ST. Immediate nailing of open fractures of the femoral shaft. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:812 820. 92. Mazurek MT, Burgess AR. Moderators summary: stabilization of long bones. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:S113 117. 93. Upadhyay A, Jain P, Mishra P, et al. Delayed internal fixation of fractures of the neck of the femur in young adults. A prospective, randomised study comparing closed and open reduction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:1035 1040. 94. Huang PJ, Cheng YM. Delayed surgical treatment for neglected or mal-reduced talar fractures. Int Orthop. 2005;29:326 329. 95. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Barei DP, et al. Talar neck fractures: results and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:1616 1624. 96. Lindvall E, Haidukewych G, DiPasquale T, et al. Open reduction and stable fixation of isolated, displaced talar neck and body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:2229 2234. 97. Harwood PJ, Giannoudis PV, Probst C, et al. The risk of local infective complications after damage control procedures for femoral shaft fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:181 189. 98. Bhandari M, Zlowodzki M, Tornetta P III, et al. Intramedullary nailing following external fixation in femoral and tibial shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:140 144. 99. Maurer DJ, Merkow RL, Gustilo RB. Infection after intramedullary nailing of severe open tibial fractures initially treated with external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71:835 838. 100. Wolinsky PR, McCarty E, Shyr Y, et al. Reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur: 551 cases. J Trauma. 1999;46:392 399. 101. Winquist RA, Hansen ST Jr, Clawson DK. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of five hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:529 539. 102. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonunion following intramedullary nailing of the femur with and without reaming. Results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:2093 2096. 103. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Tong D, et al. Reamed versus nonreamed intramedullary nailing of lower extremity long bone fractures: a systematic overview and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2000; 14:2 9. 104. Antich-Adrover P, Marti-Garin D, Murias-Alvarez J, et al. External fixation and secondary intramedullary nailing of open tibial fractures. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:433 437. 105. Keating JF, O Brien PI, Blachut PA, et al. Reamed interlocking intramedullary nailing of open fractures of the tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;338:182 191. 106. Tornetta P, 3rd, Bergman M, Watnik N, et al. Treatment of grade- IIIb open tibial fractures. A prospective randomised comparison of external fixation and non-reamed locked nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:13 19. 107. Tu YK, Lin CH, Su JI, et al. Unreamed interlocking nail versus external fixator for open type III tibia fractures. J Trauma. 1995; 39:361 367. 108. Bach AW, Hansen ST Jr. Plates versus external fixation in severe open tibial shaft fractures. A randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;241:89 94. 109. Marsh JL, Nepola JV, Wuest TK, et al. Unilateral external fixation until healing with the dynamic axial fixator for severe open tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1991;5:341 348. 110. Clifford RP, Lyons TJ, Webb JK. Complications of external fixation of open fractures of the tibia. Injury. 1987;18:174 176. 111. Benirschke SK, Agnew SG, Mayo KA, et al. Immediate internal fixation of open, complex tibial plateau fractures: treatment by a standard protocol. J Orthop Trauma. 1992;6:78 86. 112. Patterson MJ, Cole JD. Two-staged delayed open reduction and internal fixation of severe pilon fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1999; 13:85 91. 113. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83:62 68. 114. Finkemeier CG, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, et al. A prospective, randomized study of intramedullary nails inserted with and without reaming for the treatment of open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:187 193. 115. Keating JF, Blachut PA, O Brien PJ, et al. Reamed nailing of Gustilo grade-iiib tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000; 82:1113 1116. 116. Ziran BH, Darowish M, Klatt BA, et al. Intramedullary nailing in open tibia fractures: a comparison of two techniques. Int Orthop. 2004;28:235 238. 117. Court-Brown CM, Keating JF, McQueen MM. Infection after intramedullary nailing of the tibia. Incidence and protocol for management. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:770 774. 118. Keating JF, O Brien PJ, Blachut PA, et al. Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79:334 341. 119. Lecap A, Frisch HM. Intramedullary nailing following external fixation in tibial shaft fractures sustained in Operation Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. Boston, MA: Orthopedic National Meeting, 2007. 120. Ullmann Y, Fodor L, Ramon Y, et al. The revised reconstructive ladder and its applications for high-energy injuries to the extremities. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56:401 405. 121. Delimar D, Klobucar H, Jelic M, et al. Treatment of defect pseudoarthroses with bone segment transport. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2001;68:109 111. 122. Korzinek K. War injuries to the bone and joint system: reconstructive surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1994;113:180 187. 123. Lerner A, Fodor L, Soudry M. Is staged external fixation a valuable strategy for war injuries to the limbs? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 448:217 224. 124. Bell MJ, Beauchamp CG, Kellam JK, et al. The results of plating humeral shaft fractures in patients with multiple injuries. The Sunnybrook experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:293 296. 125. Okcu G, Aktuglu K. Management of shotgun induced open fractures of the humerus with Ilizarov external fixator. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2005;11:23 28. S250 March Supplement 2008

Infections of Combat Casualties Extremity 126. Johnson EC, Strauss E. Recent advances in the treatment of gunshot fractures of the humeral shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;408: 126 132. 127. Keller A. The management of gunshot fractures of the humerus. Injury. 1995;26:93 96. 128. Joshi A, Labbe M, Lindsey RW. Humeral fracture secondary to civilian gunshot injury. Injury. 1998;29(Suppl 1):SA13 SA17. 129. Changulani M. Comparison of the use of the humerus intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate for the management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus: reply to Subasi and Cebesoy. Int Orthop. 2007. 130. Chapman JR, Henley MB, Agel J, et al. Randomized prospective study of humeral shaft fracture fixation: intramedullary nails versus plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:162 166. 131. McCormack RG, Brien D, Buckley RE, et al. Fixation of fractures of the shaft of the humerus by dynamic compression plate or intramedullary nail. A prospective, randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:336 339. 132. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, McKee MD, et al. Compression plating versus intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures a metaanalysis. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:279 284. 133. Duncan R, Geissler W, Freeland AE, et al. Immediate internal fixation of open fractures of the diaphysis of the forearm. J Orthop Trauma. 1992;6:25 31. 134. Jones JA. Immediate internal fixation of high-energy open forearm fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1991;5:272 279. 135. Moed BR, Kellam JF, Foster RJ, et al. Immediate internal fixation of open fractures of the diaphysis of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1008 1017. 136. Levin LS, Goldner RD, Urbaniak JR, et al. Management of severe musculoskeletal injuries of the upper extremity. J Orthop Trauma. 1990;4:432 440. 137. Smith DK, Cooney WP. External fixation of high-energy upper extremity injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 1990;4:7 18. 138. Wininger DA, Fass RJ. Antibiotic-impregnated cement and beads for orthopedic infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40:2675 2679. 139. Ostermann PA, Seligson D, Henry SL. Local antibiotic therapy for severe open fractures. A review of 1085 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:93 97. 140. Moehring HD, Gravel C, Chapman MW, et al. Comparison of antibiotic beads and intravenous antibiotics in open fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;372:254 261. 141. Keating JF, Blachut PA, O Brien PJ, et al. Reamed nailing of open tibial fractures: does the antibiotic bead pouch reduce the deep infection rate? J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10:298 303. 142. Bowyer GW. Management of small fragment wounds: experience from the Afghan border. J Trauma. 1996;40:S170 172. S251