Abstract
Purpose.
To compare blade cultures in surgery for closed fracture using a single or double blade technique to determine whether the current practice of double blade technique is justified.
Methods.
155 men and 29 women aged 20 to 60 (mean, 35) years who underwent surgery for closed fracture with healthy skin at the incision site were included. Patients were block randomised to the single (n=92) or double (n=92) blade technique. Blades were sent for bacteriological analysis. Outcome measures were early surgical site infection (SSI) within 30 days and cultures from the blades.
Results.
The 2 groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. In the single blade group, 6 surgical blades and 2 control blades showed positive cultures; 4 patients developed SSI, but only one had a positive culture from the surgical blade (with different organism isolated from the wound culture). In the double blade group, 6 skin blades, 7 deep blades, and 0 control blade showed positive culture; only 2 patients had the same bacteria grown from both skin and deep blade. Five patients developed SSI, but only one patient had a positive culture from the deep blade (with different organism isolated from the wound culture). The difference in incidence of culture-positive blade or SSI between the 2 groups was not significant. The relative risk of SSI in the single blade group was 0.8. Positive blade culture was not associated with SSI in the single or double blade group.
Conclusion.
The practice of changing blade following skin incision has no effect on reducing early SSI in surgery for closed fracture in healthy patients with healthy skin.