5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture

Case: A 66-year-old patient sustained a closed tibial fracture which was treated by minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis. She developed a skin necrosis at the contusion side one month after surgery. A free gracilis flap was performed for soft tissue coverage together with hardware replacement. The...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Johanna Michel, Nermine Habib, Joseph M. Schwab, Angela Seidel
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-08-01
Series:Trauma Case Reports
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352644025000998
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849406583071571968
author Johanna Michel
Nermine Habib
Joseph M. Schwab
Angela Seidel
author_facet Johanna Michel
Nermine Habib
Joseph M. Schwab
Angela Seidel
author_sort Johanna Michel
collection DOAJ
description Case: A 66-year-old patient sustained a closed tibial fracture which was treated by minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis. She developed a skin necrosis at the contusion side one month after surgery. A free gracilis flap was performed for soft tissue coverage together with hardware replacement. The intraoperative histopathological examen showed no signs of infection. One out of four positive intraoperative cultures taken from bone samples was positive and was interpreted as contamination. That is why the prophylactic antibiotic therapy with Cefuroxime was stopped after 5 days. The gracilis flap developed a distal necrosis with exposure of hardware. As there were no signs of active nor systematic infection no antibiotics were administrated. Directive wound healing was performed with the skin substitute Nushield® which took 5 months.After consolidation of the fracture, the plate was removed. Intraoperative cultures of bone samples during hardware removal, as well as sonication fluid culture of the plate, were negative. Conclusion: This case challenges the paradigm that exposed osteosynthesis hardware is always contaminated by cutaneous bacteria.
format Article
id doaj-art-afc0de0ecc254b6cb5352099eb24b87e
institution Kabale University
issn 2352-6440
language English
publishDate 2025-08-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Trauma Case Reports
spelling doaj-art-afc0de0ecc254b6cb5352099eb24b87e2025-08-20T03:36:19ZengElsevierTrauma Case Reports2352-64402025-08-015810122210.1016/j.tcr.2025.1012225- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fractureJohanna Michel0Nermine Habib1Joseph M. Schwab2Angela Seidel3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, University of Fribourg, SwitzerlandSwiss Diabetic Foot Centers, Fribourg, SwitzerlandDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, University of Fribourg, SwitzerlandDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, University of Fribourg, Switzerland; Corresponding author at: Head of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, University of Fribourg, Chemin Des Pensionnats 2-6, 1708 Fribourg, Switzerland.Case: A 66-year-old patient sustained a closed tibial fracture which was treated by minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis. She developed a skin necrosis at the contusion side one month after surgery. A free gracilis flap was performed for soft tissue coverage together with hardware replacement. The intraoperative histopathological examen showed no signs of infection. One out of four positive intraoperative cultures taken from bone samples was positive and was interpreted as contamination. That is why the prophylactic antibiotic therapy with Cefuroxime was stopped after 5 days. The gracilis flap developed a distal necrosis with exposure of hardware. As there were no signs of active nor systematic infection no antibiotics were administrated. Directive wound healing was performed with the skin substitute Nushield® which took 5 months.After consolidation of the fracture, the plate was removed. Intraoperative cultures of bone samples during hardware removal, as well as sonication fluid culture of the plate, were negative. Conclusion: This case challenges the paradigm that exposed osteosynthesis hardware is always contaminated by cutaneous bacteria.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352644025000998
spellingShingle Johanna Michel
Nermine Habib
Joseph M. Schwab
Angela Seidel
5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture
Trauma Case Reports
title 5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture
title_full 5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture
title_fullStr 5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture
title_full_unstemmed 5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture
title_short 5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture
title_sort 5 months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem a case report of a distal tibia fracture
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352644025000998
work_keys_str_mv AT johannamichel 5monthsexposedimplantafterosteosynthesisisnotnecessarilyaproblemacasereportofadistaltibiafracture
AT nerminehabib 5monthsexposedimplantafterosteosynthesisisnotnecessarilyaproblemacasereportofadistaltibiafracture
AT josephmschwab 5monthsexposedimplantafterosteosynthesisisnotnecessarilyaproblemacasereportofadistaltibiafracture
AT angelaseidel 5monthsexposedimplantafterosteosynthesisisnotnecessarilyaproblemacasereportofadistaltibiafracture