Surgical site infection (SSI) is disastrous in orthopedic practice as it is difficult to rid the bone and joint of the infection. This study was aimed to assess the prevalence of SSI in orthopedic practice and to identify risk factors associated with surgical site infections. All patients admitted to the orthopedic male and female wards between January 2006 and December 2011 were included in the study group. The data, which were collected from the medical charts and from the QuadraMed patient filing system, included age, sex, date of admission, type of admission (elective versus emergency), and classification of fractures. Analyses were made to find out the association between infection and risk factors, the χ2 test was used. The strength of association of the single event with the variables was estimated using Relative Risk, with a 95% confidence interval and P < 0.05. A total of 79 of 3096 patients (2.55%) were included: 60 males and 19 females with the average age of 38.13 ± 19.1 years. Fifty-three patients were admitted directly to the orthopedic wards, 14 were transferred from the surgical intensive care unit, and 12 from other surgical wards. The most common infective organism was Staphylococcus species including Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), 23 patients (29.11%); Acinetobacter species, 17 patients (21.5%); Pseudomonas species, 15 patients (18.9%); and Enterococcus species, 14 patients (17.7%). Fifty-two (65.8%) had emergency procedures, and in 57 patients trauma surgery was performed. Three (3.78%) patients died as a result of uncontrolled septicemia. SSI was found to be common in our practice. Emergency surgical procedures carried the greatest risk with Staphylococcus species and Acinetobacter species being the most common infecting organisms. Proper measures need to be undertaken to control infection rates by every available method; antibiotics alone may not be sufficient to win this war.

No abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESOsteoporosis is common in Saudi Arabia and the burden of management in an aging population will increase in coming decades. There is still no national policy nor consensus on screening for this silent disease. The objective of this analysis was to determine from the published data the prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in Saudi Arabians, the prevalence of secondary osteoporosis, and the prevalence of osteoporosis-related fractures (ORF). We also sought to determine the best age to begin and best modality for screening.METHODSData Sources were MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1991 to May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1952 to May 2011), and the Science Citation Index (1966 to May 2011), published data from the Saudi Medical Journal (1985–2011) and Annals of Saudi Medicine (1985–2011). We selected English-language articles with at least 100 Saudi individuals. Two authors independently reviewed articles and abstracted data.RESULTSThe authors identified 36 potentially relevant articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Of 5160 healthy women 50 to 79 years of age (mean, SD: 56.8 [2.7]), 36.6% (6.6%) were osteopenic and 34.0% (8.5%) were osteoporotic. In three studies on males (n=822), the prevalence of osteopenia was 46.3% and osteoporosis 30.7%. Males had a significantly higher frequency of osteopenia in comparison to females (P=<.001 95% CI<−0.0333), The mean age of the patients with secondary osteoporosis was 37.4 (13.5, 18–57) years, with the osteoporosis in 46.4% and osteopenia in 34.1%. In 5 studies of ORF, the incidence of vertebral fractures was between 20%–24%.CONCLUSIONThe currently available literature on Saudi Arabian population suggests that the ideal age for screening for low bone mass among the Saudi population should be earlier (55 years) than the ≥65 years in Western countries. Both quatitative ultrasound and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry could be used for screening. The relatively small number of studies on Saudi Arabians and the different machines used for diagnosis limited the authors ability make conclusions with surety.

No abstract