![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Absorbable fracture fixation has been in clinical use since 1984. Our study compares the infection rates and some infection parameters between metallic (2073 patients) and absorbable fracture fixation devices (1012 patients) in displaced ankle fractures.
The infection rate associated with metallic fixation was 4.1%, compared with 3.2% absorbable fixation (p 0.3). The patients who had a wound infection were older when metallic fixation was used (p 0.01). They also had a bi- or trimalleolar fracture more often than did patients treated with absorbable fracture fixation, but this difference did not have a significant effect on the wound infection rate (p 0.2).
The infections were mostly caused by microorganisms of the Staphylococcus species. Deep infections were equally common with both fixation methods (0.4%), but there was some variation in the bacterial spectrum.
