Academic Journal of Science and Technology ISSN: 2771-3032 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 2023 37 Observation and Clinical Evaluation of Traumatic Tibial Osteomyelitis Treated with Antibiotic Bone Cement Guorui Ding Department of Orthopedics, Dongsheng People’ s Hospital, Ordos, Inner Mongolia, 017000, China Abstract: Objective: To study the therapeutic effect of patients with traumatic tibial osteomyelitis by antibiotic bone cement. Methods: Sixty patients with traumatic tibial osteomyelitis admitted to the hospital between January 2020 and December 2022 were selected and randomly grouped to compare the various therapeutic effects of the two groups of patients. Results: All treatment effects of patients in the observation group were better than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis patients by antibiotic bone cement can improve the clinical effect and is worth promoting. Keywords: Traumatic tibial osteomyelitis, Antibiotics, Bone cement, Treatment effect. 1. Introduction Traumatic osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone tissue, mainly in the tibia, involving the periosteum, medullary cavity and soft tissues, which can lead to lifelong disability if not treated promptly[1-3] . The duration of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis is long, the degree of infection is difficult to control, and the recurrence rate is high. With the extensive improvement in clinical techniques, bone cements have been upgraded[4] , and a study found[5] : treatment of patients with traumatic tibial osteomyelitis by antibiotic bone cement enhances clinical outcomes. In this paper, the authors selected 60 patients with traumatic tibial osteomyelitis admitted to the hospital between January 2020 and December 2022, aiming to analyze the effect of the application of antibiotic bone cement, which is described below. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. General Information Sixty patients with traumatic tibial osteomyelitis who were admitted to the hospital between January 2020 and December 2022 were selected and randomly grouped, and the general data are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Comparison of general information between the two groups of patients ( x ± s) [n (%) Group Number of cases Age (years) Average age Duration of illness (months) Average duration of illness Male Patients Female patients Observation group 30 20-60 40.65±8.76 8-24 15.82±4.13 23 7 Control group 30 20-60 40.31±8.81 8-24 15.71±4.09 21 9 X2 /t - 0.150 0.104 0.341 P - 0.881 0.918 0.559 Inclusion criteria: (i) consistent with the diagnostic criteria for traumatic tibial osteomyelitis; (ii) informed about this study and agreed to participate. Exclusion mark: ① with limb dysfunction; ② with severe bone destruction; ③ with bone tumor; ④ with bone tuberculosis. 2.2. Methods Patients in both groups were treated with negative pressure drainage, and wound secretions were extracted for bacterial culture and drug sensitivity testing. Control group: treated by local instillation of antibiotics: after complete removal of the lesion, the medullary cavity was opened and soaked with hydrogen peroxide and iodophor combined with antibiotic solution and rinsed at least three times, patients with unhealed fractures were treated by autologous bone grafting, then fixed by suturing after negative pressure drainage and antibiotic solution was dripped into the plumbing, and the amount of antibiotics given to patients after surgery was approximately three times the amount of antibiotics given to the patient after surgery, by continuous perfusion for 21 d. Observation group: treatment by antibiotic bone cement: 40g of polymethyl methacrylate and 2g of antibiotics were added to the bone cement solution, and after the above substances were fully mixed, wire was used for stringing and made into 1cm antibiotic chain beads, and after the lesion was completely removed, the medullary cavity was opened, and the flushing procedure was the same as that of the control group, and after successful flushing, the antibiotic chain beads were fully filled, and after negative pressure drainage followed by suture fixation, after the formation of granulation tissue, the drainage needs to be stopped and the chain beads can be removed and effectively implanted with bone. 2.3. Observation indicators ① Disease-related clinical parameters. ②Total effective rate of treatment: Total effective rate of 38 treatment = (effective+effective)/total number of cases between groups. Effective: the general symptoms and local pain and swelling disappeared completely, the wound surface healed successfully, and the limb function returned to normal, and no dead space was observed by X-ray; Effective: the general symptoms, local pain and swelling improved, the wound surface healed well, the limb function improved significantly, and the recovery efficiency of bone tissue was excellent by X-ray; Ineffective: the above effects were obtained. (iii) WBC counts and hs-CRP levels. ④ VAS scores, HHS scores, and Baird-Jackson scores. ⑤ Quality of life score. 2.4. Statistical treatment SPSS 20.0 statistical software was used, where mean + standard deviation ( x ± s) was used to represent the measurement data, which was verified by calculating t-values, and rate (%) was used to represent the count data, which was verified by calculating X .2 3. Results 3.1. Comparison of disease-related clinical parameters See Table 2. Table 2. Comparison of disease-related clinical parameters ( x ± s) [n (%) General Information Observation group (n=30) Control group (n=30) X2/t P Bacterial culture turnaround time (d) 14.02±2.03 17.35±2.41 5.788 0.000 Wound healing time (d) 26.13±4.62 30.76±4.12 4.097 0.000 Number of drug changes (times) 5.62±0.76 7.69±1.06 8.693 0.000 Length of hospitalization (d) 29.16±4.02 33.85±4.61 4.200 0.000 Trauma infection control rate (%) 30 (100.0) 25 (83.3) 5.455 0.020 Recurrence rate (%) 2 (6.7) 4 (13.3) 0.741 0.389 3.2. Comparison of total treatment efficiency See Table 3. Table 3. Comparison of total treatment effectiveness [n (%) Group Number of cases Show effect Effective Invalid Total efficiency Observation group 30 25 5 0 30 (100.0) Control group 30 20 4 6 24 (80.0) X2 - - - - 6.667 P - - - - 0.010 3.3. Comparison of WBC counts and hs-CRP levels See Table 4. Table 4. Comparison of WBC counts as well as hs-CRP levels ( x ±s) Group Number of cases WBC count (×109 /L) hs-CRP (mg/L) Before treatment After treatment Before treatment After treatment Observation group 30 13.32±1.32 8.26±0.56 26.09±5.13 2.01±0.43 Control group 30 13.41±1.40 9.79±0.79 25.99±5.34 3.31±0.65 t - 0.256 8.654 0.102 9.136 P - 0.799 0.000 0.919 0.000 3.4. Comparison of VAS scores, HHS scores, and Baird-Jackson scores See Table 5. 39 Table 5. Comparison of VAS scores, HHS scores, and Baird-Jackson scores ( x ± s) (points) Group Number of cases VAS score HHS Score Baird-Jackson Rating Before treatment After treatment Before treatment After treatment Before treatment After treatment Observation group 30 2.43±0.36 1.26±0.20 61.26±8.32 89.64±7.52 62.35±7.86 84.65±6.96 Control group 30 2.35±0.41 1.99±0.36 61.52±8.19 71.16±7.26 62.40±7.79 71.02±6.35 t - 0.803 9.709 0.122 9.684 0.025 7.924 P - 0.425 0.000 0.903 0.000 0.980 0.000 3.5. Comparison of quality-of-life scores See Table 6. Table 6. Comparison of quality of life scores ( x ± s) (points) Group Number of cases Mobility Mental state Before Care Aftercare Before Care Aftercare Observation group 30 67.53±3.84 86.32±4.79 73.56±4.25 87.68±6.89 Control group 30 67.94±3.96 71.52±4.36 72.98±4.16 80.13±6.23 t - 0.407 12.515 0.534 4.452 P - 0.685 0.000 0.595 0.000 Table 6. (continued) Group Number of cases Social competence Physiological functions Before Care After Care Before Care After Care Observation group 30 69.82±4.53 89.82±5.03 71.56±3.98 92.65±4.18 Control group 30 69.13±4.58 79.68±4.98 71.03±4.16 83.35±4.12 t - 0.587 7.846 0.504 8.679 P - 0.560 0.000 0.616 0.000 4. Discussion According to epidemiological studies[6] : With the rapid development of transportation and industry in China, the incidence of open fractures of the extremities has increased significantly, leading to a rapid increase in the incidence of traumatic osteomyelitis, which occurs mainly in young and middle-aged men, and the most common area of osteomyelitis is the tibia, which is the most serious traumatic infection in clinical practice and[7-8] . The main causative agent of traumatic osteomyelitis is Staphylococcus aureus, which secretes localized purulent material and causes inflammatory reactions in the limb or partial hyperpigmentation, resulting in adhesive scarring of the sinus tract and bone, resulting in sunken edema and pressure pain[9] and systemic infection. The long duration of traumatic osteomyelitis, the high level of pain, the difficulty in controlling the infection, and the relatively high rate of postoperative recurrence require effective control of the infection in patients with traumatic osteomyelitis to improve the clinical outcome and thereby improve the function of the limb. [10-11] The treatment of patients with traumatic osteomyelitis is usually performed surgically. Through surgery, sinus tracts, dead bone, dead cavities, scarring and inflammatory granulation tissue can be effectively removed, and the pathogenic bacteria, necrotic tissue and inflammatory exudative reaction can be continuously removed through negative pressure drainage, and the efficiency of toxin absorption by the body can be significantly reduced, so that the problems of wound obstruction and poor drainage can be effectively solved, which is a new anti-infection technique in orthopedics for soft tissue patients with fractures[12-13] . Local antibiotic irrigation is the main method of comprehensive control of infection, which can control the reaction of pathogenic bacteria in the perioperative period to a certain extent, but its therapeutic effect does not correspond to the expected effect. Antibiotic bone cement belongs to the product of advanced technology in modern society, as the name implies, antibiotic bone cement is made of antibiotics and polymethyl methacrylate, which can play the role of filling as well as scaffolding, providing convenience for later bone implantation, and also can be completely placed into the lesion during the treatment process, which can obtain relatively stable antibacterial effect, and at the same time, it will not lead to immune reaction of patients, so antibiotic bone Cement is widely used in the treatment of patients with traumatic osteomyelitis[14-15] . The results of this paper showed that all treatment effects of patients in the observation group were better than those in the control group. It can be seen that patients with traumatic osteomyelitis treated with antibiotic bone cement had significantly shorter operation time, effectively reduced trauma severity, controlled inflammatory damage, reduced pain, significantly improved limb joint function, significantly improved clinical efficacy, and low recurrence rate, with good long-term therapeutic effects. In conclusion, the treatment of patients with traumatic tibial osteomyelitis by antibiotic bone cement is clinically effective, safe, and can obtain effective long-term results, and is worth promoting. 40 References [1] Deng Jie. Clinical efficacy of applying antibiotic bone cement for treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis[J]. International Journal of Medicine and Health, 2017, 23(17):2716-2719. [2] Song Zhiyong. Discussion on the clinical effect of antibiotic bone cement in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis [J]. China Disability Medicine, 2018, 26(21):25-27. [3] Han Dawei, Zhang Baiming, Ye Lingchao. Observation on the wound healing effect of antibiotic bone cement for traumatic tibial osteomyelitis[J]. Zhejiang Trauma Surgery, 2017, 22(4):673-674. [4] Yushan M , Ren P , Abula A , et al. Bifocal or Trifocal (Double- Level) Bone Transport Using Unilateral Rail System in the Treatment of Large Tibial Defects Caused by Infection: A Retrospective Study[J]. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2020, 12(1):184- 193. [5] Liu Guangyong. Efficacy of antibiotic bone cement combined with antibiotic external fixation in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis [J]. Journal of Trauma Surgery, 2017, 019(003):226-227. [6] Wang Hongfei, Ji Zhantong, Wang Zihui. Efficacy of negative pressure closed drainage combined with antibiotic bone cement in the treatment of traumatic osteomyelitis[J]. Western Medicine, 2018, 30(12):1821-1824. [7] Han Yun, Yang Jinxing, Zhang Mengchun,et al. Comparison of the efficacy of bone cement with and without antibiotics after complete removal of tibial osteomyelitis lesions[J]. Chinese Journal of Traumatic Orthopedics, 2021, 23(5):443- 447. [8] Qian Fenghan, Chen Shaolin, Tong Liang, et al. Clinical efficacy of antibiotic bone cement in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis[J]. China Practical Medicine, 2020, 15 (6): 147-149. [9] Li Deqing. Analysis and evaluation of the effect of using antibiotic bone cement in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis [J]. China Health Care Nutrition, 2020, 30(30): 282-283. [10] Noor S, Gilson A, Kennedy K, eta1. Pre- packing of cost effective antibioticcement beads for the treatment of traumaticosteomyelitisinthe developing world-anin -vitrostudy basedin Cambodia[J].Injury,2016,47(4):805-810. [11] Tuerhongjiang-Tusong, Chang Yuwen. Clinical efficacy of antibiotic bone cement in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis: a discussion and analysis [J]. China Health Care Nutrition, 2019, 013(015):262. [12] Liu Guangyong. Efficacy of antibiotic bone cement combined with antibiotic external fixation in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis [J]. Journal of Trauma Surgery, 2017, 19(3):226-227. [13] Dai J , Zhou Y , Mei S , et al. Application of antibiotic bone cement in the treatment of infected diabetic foot ulcers in type 2 diabetes [J]. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2023, 24(1):135. [14] Qu Zenghui, Wang Sha. Effectiveness of antibiotic bone cement combined with anterior external femoral free flap in the treatment of traumatic tibial osteomyelitis with skin soft tissue defects[J]. Clinical Medicine Research and Practice, 2021, 6(10):68-70. [15] Fan Shaodi, Liu Zhiheng, Wu Guozhong, et al. Clinical study of antibiotic bone cement combined with membrane induction technique for the treatment of tibial osteomyelitis[J]. Bio- Orthopedic Materials and Clinical Research, 2017, 14(4):54-57.