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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
