Article: AENJ-D-14-00038 Date: January 16, 2015 Time: 23:9

Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal

Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 23–29
Copyright 
C 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

A P P L I E D

Pharmacology
Column Editor: Kyle A. Weant, PharmD, BCPS

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Open

Fractures in the Emergency
Department
Kyle A. Weant, PharmD, BCPS
Abby M. Bailey, PharmD, BCPS
Regan A. Baum, PharmD, BCPS
Stephanie B. Justice, PharmD, BCPS

Abstract
Emergency departments across the country regularly treat patients with traumatic injuries. One of
the more common injuries that these patients present with is open fractures. Much of the morbidity
associated with these fractures can be traced to the development of fracture-site infections that can
lead to chronic osteomyelitis, impaired bone healing, and potential limb loss. Initial wound cultures in
this setting are frequently positive, but they tend to demonstrate poor correlation with subsequent
infections. The emergent management of open fractures includes a multipronged approach that
includes stabilization, debridement, irrigation, soft tissue coverage, and systemic empiric antibiotics
for prophylaxis. This review will discuss the etiology and factors associated with the development
of infections in this setting, the use of empiric antibiotics, and the guidelines currently available.
Key words: antibiotics, cefazolin, emergency department, gentamicin, open fracture

I NJURIES RESULTING FROM TRAUMA are

a common presentation to emergency de-
partments (EDs) across the United States

Author Affiliations: Pharmacy Services, Kentucky-

One Health, University of Louisville Hospital and
Jewish Hospital, Louisville, Kentucky (Dr Weant); Uni-
versity of Kentucky HealthCare, and Departments of
Pharmacy Services and Pharmacy Practice and Science,
University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, Lexington
(Drs Bailey and Baum); and Department of Pharmacy,
Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, West
Virginia (Dr Justice).
Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Corresponding Author: Kyle A. Weant, PharmD,
BCPS, Pharmacy Services, KentuckyOne Health, 530
S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY 40202 (kaw9600@alumni
.unc.edu).
DOI: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000052
and lead to an estimated 5.8 million deaths
per year (Lane, Mabvuure, Hindocha, & Khan,
2012). Open fractures, which are defined as
“ . . . one in which the fracture fragments com-
municate with the environment through a
break in the skin,” are frequently seen in this
patient population (Hoff, Bonadies, Cache-
cho, & Dorlac, 2011). Much of the morbidity
associated with these fractures can be traced
to the development of subsequent fracture-
site infections that can lead to chronic os-
teomyelitis, impaired bone healing, and the
potential loss of the limb (Hauser, Adams,
& Eachempati, 2006). Some of the original
research done in this area by Gustilo re-
ported a positive bacterial culture in 70.3%

23

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Article: AENJ-D-14-00038 Date: January 16, 2015
24
of open fracture wounds (Gustilo & Ander-
son, 1976). In an attempt to limit this un-
toward consequence, antibiotic prophylaxis
is commonly used to limit the rate of infec-
tious complications. However, the benefits of
this practice need to be critically weighed
against the known risks of prophylactic an-
tibiotic use, such as the development of an-
tibiotic resistance, subsequent infection from
multidrug resistant pathogens, and the de-
velopment of a health care associated infec-
tion (Manian, Meyer, Setzer, & Senkel, 2003;
Namias et al., 1999). The emergent manage-
ment of these fractures includes stabilization,
debridement, irrigation, soft tissue coverage,
and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Emer-
gency department practitioners are encour-
aged to develop standardized approaches to
this patient population to ensure the provi-
sion of safe, timely, and effective antibiotic
prophylaxis. This review will discuss the eti-
ology and factors associated with the de-
velopment of infections in this setting, the
use of empiric antibiotics, and the available
guidelines.
ETIOLOGY
The occurrence of infections with open frac-
tures is a potentially preventable deleterious
adverse event. The rate of infection is quite
variable but has been noted to be up to
50% in some studies (Carsenti-Etesse et al.,
1999). Certain subpopulations within those
presenting with open fractures also appear
to be more predisposed to the development
of infection (Lane et al., 2012). Patients who
present with a more severe fracture grade,
defined by the Gustilo and Anderson scale,
have a statistically significant increased inci-
dence of infection (Harley, Beaupre, Jones,
Dulai, & Weber, 2002; Hauser et al., 2006).
The impact of a subsequent infection can also
be profound as the rate of infection has been
shown to increase the incidence of nonunion
of the fracture and subsequent bone insta-
bility (Gustilo & Anderson, 1976). Although
many patients with open fractures present
to the ED with a certain amount of bacterial
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Time: 23:9
Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal
inoculums acquired during or following in-
jury, this does not necessarily represent the
bacteria that subsequently results in infec-
tion (Patzakis, Harvey, & Ivler, 1974). Mul-
tiple studies utilizing wound cultures have
found that bacteria found in these wounds
at the time of presentation do not correlate
with bacteria that subsequently cause postop-
erative infections in these patients (Carsenti-
Etesse et al., 1999; Lee, 1997; Merritt, 1988).
Blood cultures have also been found to be
equally unhelpful, with only 8% correlating
with subsequent infectious organisms (Lee,
1997). Most infections of open fractures tend
to be the result of hospital-acquired bacte-
ria including gram-negative rods and gram-
positive staphylococci. Some studies have re-
ported nosocomial bacteria to be responsible
for as many as 92% of infections (Carsenti-
Etesse et al., 1999). This is likely secondary
to immunosuppression due to the injury itself
as well as alterations in perfusion to the in-
jured tissue (Barie, 2006). This is supported
by studies that have shown that the time
to definitive treatment did not have an im-
pact on the infection rate; however, infection
rates were significantly increased in more se-
vere fractures (Gustilo, & Anderson, 1976).
Historically, gram-positive organisms includ-
ing Staphylococcus aureus accounted for as
much as half of all surgical site infections in
the setting of open fractures (Bergman, 1982;
Braun, Enzler, & Rittmann, 1987; Patzakis et
al., 1974). More recent research in the age
of a higher prevalence of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has found
that although the overall causative agent has
not changed, MRSA now accounts for a sub-
stantial portion of this number (up to 18%)
(Saveli et al., 2013). This rate has also been
noted to increase significantly in those who
have nasal colonization with MRSA (Saveli
et al., 2013; Shukla, Nixon, Acharya, Korim, &
Pandey, 2009). Approximately 20% of the gen-
eral population has nasal colonization with
S. aureus and it can persist for months or
years (Weidenmaier, Goerke, & Wolz, 2012).
In one study of open fractures, more than 20%
of patients were found to be colonized with
 Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
January–March 2015 r Vol. 37, No. 1
methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus
(MSSA) and 3% with MRSA (Saveli et al., 2013).
Those with MRSA colonization had a signifi-
cantly higher rate of subsequent MRSA infec-
tions.
The need to provide coverage for gram-
negative organisms in the setting of open frac-
tures has been one of significant debate. This
suggestion was initially published for severe
fractures (Grade III) in a seminal paper in the
mid-1970s (Patzakis et al., 1974). However,
limited data have been put forth since this
time to support or refute this claim. The avail-
able literature has reported that gram-negative
organisms have been isolated from open frac-
tures in 17%–48% of cases (Carsenti-Etesse
et al., 1999; Johnson, Burns, Hayda, Hos-
penthal, & Murray, 2007; Ong, Choon,
Cabrera, & Maffulli, 2002). Therefore, it is
recommended by some and dismissed by
others leading to substantial variations in
practice (Hauser et al., 2006; Hoff et al.,
2011; Lane et al., 2012). Determining the
need for the provision of this coverage in all
patients, or a specific subset, is critical as the
traditional antibiotic coverage provided in
this setting (e.g., cephalosporins) provides
minimal prophylaxis against these organisms.
EMPIRIC ANTIBIOTIC SELECTION
Wound irrigation, debridement, and delaying
wound closure are the most well-established
methods of decreasing the rate of infection;
however, empiric antibiotics should also be
initiated (see Table 1; Hauser et al., 2006;
Hoff et al., 2011). The high rate of contam-
ination associated with open fractures in the
field has led to the traditional provision of
empiric antibiotics in this setting to prevent
initial infection. As has been discussed, based
on the causative organisms of the subsequent
infections, it is likely that it is the high rate
of contamination of wounds within the hos-
pital that necessitates the use of prophylactic
antibiotics. Regardless of the source, antibi-
otics have been shown to reduce the risk of
infection by 59%, and so it is clear that some
form of antimicrobial prophylaxis is indicated
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Date: January 16, 2015 Time: 23:9
Open Fracture Prophylaxis 25
in this setting (Gosselin, Roberts, & Gillespie,
2004).
The selection of antibiotics should be
directed at the most likely pathogens as
described previously. Based on the avail-
able data, this would translate into cover-
age for MSSA and possibly gram-negative
organisms (Bergman, 1982; Braun et al.,
1987; Patzakis et al., 1974). The ideal an-
tibiotic regimen is the subject of some de-
bate within the literature, with some recom-
mending only cephalosporin usage and oth-
ers recommending a combination of both
cephalosporins and aminoglycosides. A sys-
tematic review of the literature found that af-
ter pooling data from more than 1,000 pa-
tients, antibiotics significantly reduced the
incidence of wound infection (Gosselin
et al., 2004). The authors recommend that
the use of prophylactic antibiotics directed
at gram-positive organisms (e.g., cefazolin)
be started as soon as possible after injury
and should be combined with appropriate
wound management to reduce the rate of
subsequent infection. Some European groups
have gone so far as to recommend that antibi-
otics be administered within the first 3 hr of
injury (Griffin, Malahias, Khan, & Hindocha,
2012).
Clostridium (e.g., Clostridium perfrin-
gens) is often a concern in the setting of
a highly contaminated wound in the field,
and historically any wound exposed to dirt
and/or farm soil has received additional cover-
age against this organism (Griffin et al., 2012).
Many historical articles have recommended
the addition of penicillin G to the antibiotic
regimen in this specific subset of patients
(Patzakis et al., 1974). However, epidemiolog-
ical data do not appear to support this recom-
mendation, with one study showing that only
a singular Clostridium infection occurred out
of 616 presentations (Carsenti-Etesse et al.,
1999). Furthermore, questions exist regard-
ing the efficacy of the most commonly rec-
ommended agent for coverage, penicillin G
(Brazier, Levett, Stannard, Phillips, & Willis,
1985). Therefore, substantial variations re-
garding this presentation have developed and
 Article: AENJ-D-14-00038 Date: January 16, 2015 Time: 23:9

26 Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal

Table 1. Estimated infection rate by fracture grade and recommended antibiotic coverage

Surgical Infection
Infection Society
Fracture grade rate EAST recommendations recommendations

I 0%–9% Gram-positive coverage Gram-positive coverage

(e.g., cefazolin) (e.g., cefazolin)
II 1%–12% Gram-positive coverage Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin) (e.g., cefazolin)
III 9%–55% Gram-positive coverage Gram-positive coverage
(e.g., cefazolin) + (e.g., cefazolin)
Gram-negative coverage
(e.g., gentamicin)
Possible fecal or Above coverage plus the No additional coverage
clostridial addition of high-dose recommended
contamination penicillin
(e.g., farm-related
injuries)

Note. EAST = Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. From “Epidemiology of Bacterial Infection During Man-
agement of Open Leg Fractures,” by H. Carsenti-Etesse, F. Doyon, N. Desplaces, O. Gagey, C. Tancrede, C. Pradier, B.
Dunais, and P. Dellamonica, 1999, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 18(5), pp.
315–323; “East Practice Management Guidelines Work Group: Update to Practice Management Guidelines for Prophy-
lactic Antibiotic Use in Open Fractures,” by W. S. Hoff, J. A. Bonadies, R. Cachecho, and W. C. Dorlac, 2011, Journal of
Trauma, 70(3), pp. 751–754; “Surgical Infection Society Guideline: Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Open Fractures: An
Evidence-Based Guideline,” by C. J. Hauser, C. A. Jr. Adams, and S. R. Eachempati, 2006, Surgical Infections (Larchmt),
7(4), pp. 379–405.

additional studies are needed to resolve this REVIEW OF EXISTING GUIDELINES

issue.
Whatever the antibiotic of choice is for the
provision of prophylaxis in this population,
as with all antibiotics, their judicious use is
strongly recommended. Ample evidence ex-
ists that demonstrates that the use of pro-
longed prophylactic antibiotics can lead to
the development of infections with drug-
resistant organisms in critically ill patients
(Velmahos et al., 2002). This is in addition
to the known potential complication of an-
tibiotic use, C. difficile infection (Lumpkins
et al., 2008). These untoward events can be
mitigated through the use of antibiotics with
a narrow spectrum of activity, administered
for a short amount of time. This decreases the
exposure of bacteria to these agents and lim-
its their ability to develop resistance. Further-
more, with the rising cost, and routine short-
ages of these agents, it is critical that they be
utilized in a targeted and judicious manner.
The Eastern Association for the Surgery of
Trauma (EAST) Practice Management Guide-
lines Work Group recommends that systemic
antibiotic coverage that specifically targets
gram-positive organisms (e.g., cefazolin) be
started immediately after injury (Hoff et al.,
2011). Furthermore, it recommends the ad-
dition of antibiotics with gram-negative cov-
erage for those suffering from Type III frac-
tures because of a higher risk of infection from
that class of organisms. They note that once
daily aminoglycoside (e.g., gentamicin) dos-
ing is both safe and effective for Type II and
III fractures. The EAST guidelines note that
fluoroquinolones (e.g., levofloxacin) offer no
therapeutic advantage over a cephalosporin
plus an aminoglycoside. They go on to fur-
ther discuss that fluoroquinolones may actu-
ally have a negative effect on fracture heal-
ing and may result in higher infection rates

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Article: AENJ-D-14-00038
January–March 2015 r Vol. 37, No. 1
in Type III open fractures (Hoff et al., 2011).
Those fractures that may have fecal or poten-
tial Clostridium contamination, such as farm-
related injuries, should also have additional
high-dose penicillin added for coverage. Re-
garding duration of therapy, the EAST guide-
lines recommend that antibiotics be discon-
tinued 23 hr after wound closure for Type I
and II fractures and that they be continued
for 72 hr for Type III fractures or not greater
than 24 hr subsequent to soft tissue coverage
of the wound.
Research looking into overall use of these
guidelines has demonstrated low rates of com-
pliance. Barton and colleagues conducted a
retrospective analysis of 214 patients and
found that the prescription of prophylactic
antibiotics was guideline compliant in 28.5%
of patients (Barton, McMillian, Crookes,
Osler, & Bartlett, 2012). The most common
reason noted for noncompliance was the use
of coverage that exceeded the suggested du-
ration (71.2%). The most common antibiotics
used were cefazolin (46.7%) and cefazolin
plus gentamicin (36.4%). The authors found
that noncompliance with the EAST guidelines
was associated with statistically significant in-
creases in in-hospital morbidity. They noted
increases in intensive care unit length of stay,
hospital length of stay, number of surgical pro-
cedures performed, and the number of units
of packed red blood cells transfused.
The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) has also
developed an evidence-based guideline re-
garding prophylactic antibiotic use in open
fractures (Hauser et al., 2006). The SIS
guidelines recommend that first-generation
cephalosporins (e.g., cefazolin), or an agent
that provides similar coverage against gram-
positive bacteria, are indicated for 24–48 hr
perioperatively for Grade I–III fractures. In a
deviation from the EAST guidelines, the SIS
guidelines state that there are insufficient data
to conclude that it is necessary to provide
antibiotics providing coverage against gram-
negative bacteria (e.g., aminoglycosides, flu-
oroquinolones) as prophylaxis for any grade
of open fracture. Furthermore, they state that
the use of prophylactic penicillin for the treat-
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Date: January 16, 2015 Time: 23:9
Open Fracture Prophylaxis 27
ment of possible Clostridium contamination
is based on insufficient evidence. They do
agree with the EAST guidelines in stating that
there are inadequate data to suggest that the
use of prolonged regimens of prophylactic an-
tibiotics past the initial preoperative period is
beneficial in any way.
Although these two sets of guidelines pro-
vide some contradictory recommendations, it
is clear that early administration of agents di-
rected at gram-positive bacteria is indicated
soon after the presentation of an open frac-
ture. The timing of this administration can be
quite critical. One study conducted by Patza-
kis and Wilkins (1989) found that there was
an increase in infection rate by 3.7% when
antibiotics were delayed by more than 180
min. These data are in line with the opinions
of those of the Orthopaedic Trauma Associa-
tion that found that a survey of its members
showed that they felt that less than 60 min
should be the antibiotic administration tar-
get for this presentation (Obremskey et al.,
2013). To improve early and appropriate an-
tibiotic administration in this select popula-
tion, one group even devised an approach
that involved audiovisual presentations, ed-
ucational posters, increased antibiotic avail-
ability, and continuous performance feedback
to enhance care (Collinge, McWilliam-Ross,
Kelly, & Dombroski, 2014). Through this mul-
tipronged approach, the authors significantly
increased antibiotic administration within
1 hr by 28% and improved recommended
dosing of antibiotics by 12%. Another group
implemented an evidence-based protocol for
prophylaxis that significantly decreased the
use of aminoglycoside and glycopeptide an-
tibiotics by 37.1%, with no increase in skin
and soft tissue infection rate (Rodriguez et al.,
2014).
CONCLUSION
Traumatic injury resulting in an open fracture
is a frequent presentation to EDs. The signif-
icant morbidity that can be traced to these
injuries is often secondary to infection. Al-
though these wounds are often contaminated
 Article: AENJ-D-14-00038 Date: January 16, 2015
28
by multiple organisms on presentation, the
majority of open fracture infections are due
to gram-positive organisms. As such, the pro-
vision of antibiotic prophylaxis as soon as
possible after injury is recommended by the
available guidelines. Although the addition of
gram-negative coverage and high-dose peni-
cillin is debatable, the early administration of
an antibiotic with coverage against MSSA is
clearly indicated. Regardless of the specific
antibiotics chosen for prophylaxis, these med-
ications should be administered for the short-
est period possible, as the extended use of
these agents has been shown to propagate an-
tibiotic resistance and increase the risk of in-
fection because of a drug-resistant organism.
Practitioners in the ED should work to de-
velop standardized approaches to these pre-
sentations in order to ensure that appropri-
ate antibiotic therapy is provided in a timely
fashion.
REFERENCES
Barie, P. S. (2006). Breaking with tradition: Evidence-
based antibiotic prophylaxis of open fractures.
Surgical Infections (Larchmt), 7(4), 327–329.
doi:10.1089/sur.2006.7.327
Barton, C. A., McMillian, W. D., Crookes, B. A., Osler,
T., & Bartlett, C. S., III. (2012). Compliance with the
Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guide-
lines for prophylactic antibiotics after open extrem-
ity fracture. International Journal of Critical Illness
and Injury Science, 2(2), 57–62. doi:10.4103/2229-
5151.97268
Bergman, B. R. (1982). Antibiotic prophylaxis in open
and closed fractures: A controlled clinical trial. Acta
Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 53(1), 57–62.
Braun, R., Enzler, M. A., & Rittmann, W. W. (1987). A
double-blind clinical trial of prophylactic cloxacillin
in open fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma,
1(1), 12–17.
Brazier, J. S., Levett, P. N., Stannard, A. J., Phillips, K.
D., & Willis, A. T. (1985). Antibiotic susceptibility of
clinical isolates of clostridia. The Journal of Antimi-
crobial Chemotherapy, 15(2), 181–185.
Carsenti-Etesse, H., Doyon, F., Desplaces, N., Gagey,
O., Tancrede, C., & Pradier, C., . . . Dellamonica, P.
(1999). Epidemiology of bacterial infection during
management of open leg fractures. European Jour-
nal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases,
18(5), 315–323.
Collinge, C., McWilliam-Ross, K., Kelly, K. C., & Dom-
broski, D. (2014). Substantial improvement in pro-
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Time: 23:9
Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal
phylactic antibiotic administration for open fracture
patients: Results of a performance improvement pro-
gram. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 28, 620–
625. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000090
Gosselin, R. A., Roberts, I., & Gillespie, W. J.
(2004). Antibiotics for preventing infection in
open limb fractures. The Cochrane Database
Systematic Reviews, (1), CD003764. doi:10.1002/
14651858.CD003764.pub2
Griffin, M., Malahias, M., Khan, W., & Hindocha,
S. (2012). Update on the management of open
lower limb fractures. Open Orthoedics Jour-
nal, 6 (Suppl 3:M13), 571–577. doi:10.2174/
1874325001206010571
Gustilo, R. B., & Anderson, J. T. (1976). Prevention
of infection in the treatment of one thousand and
twenty-five open fractures of long bones: Retrospec-
tive and prospective analyses. The Journal of Bone
and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 58(4), 453–
458.
Harley, B. J., Beaupre, L. A., Jones, C. A., Dulai, S. K., &
Weber, D. W. (2002). The effect of time to defini-
tive treatment on the rate of nonunion and infection
in open fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma,
16(7), 484–490.
Hauser, C. J., Adams, C. A., & Eachempati, S. R. (2006).
Surgical Infection Society guideline: Prophylactic an-
tibiotic use in open fractures: An evidence-based
guideline. Surgical Infections (Larchmt), 7(4), 379–
405. doi:10.1089/sur.2006.7.379
Hoff, W. S., Bonadies, J. A., Cachecho, R., & Dorlac,
W. C. (2011). East Practice Management Guide-
lines Work Group: Update to practice manage-
ment guidelines for prophylactic antibiotic use in
open fractures. Journal of Trauma, 70(3), 751–754.
doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31820930e5
Johnson, E. N., Burns, T. C., Hayda, R. A., Hospenthal, D.
R., & Murray, C. K. (2007). Infectious complications
of open type III tibial fractures among combat casu-
alties. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45(4), 409–415.
doi:CID50719
Lane, J. C., Mabvuure, N. T., Hindocha, S., & Khan, W.
(2012). Current concepts of prophylactic antibiotics
in trauma: A review. Open Orthopedics Journal, 6,
511–517. doi:10.2174/1874325001206010511
Lee, J. (1997). Efficacy of cultures in the management of
open fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research, 339, 71–75.
Lumpkins, K., Bochicchio, G. V., Joshi, M., Gens, R.,
Bochicchio, K., & Conway, A., . . . Scalea, T. (2008).
Clostridium difficile infection in critically injured
trauma patients. Surgical Infections (Larchmt), 9(5),
497–501. doi:10.1089/sur.2007.071
Manian, F. A., Meyer, P. L., Setzer, J., & Senkel, D. (2003).
Surgical site infections associated with methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Do postoperative
factors play a role? Clinical Infectious Diseases,
36(7), 863–868. doi:CID30265
 Article: AENJ-D-14-00038 Date: January 16, 2015
January–March 2015 r Vol. 37, No. 1
Merritt, K. (1988). Factors increasing the risk of infection
in patients with open fractures. Journal of Trauma,
28(6), 823–827.
Namias, N., Harvill, S., Ball, S., McKenney, M. G.,
Salomone, J. P., & Civetta, J. M. (1999). Cost and
morbidity associated with antibiotic prophylaxis in
the ICU. Journal of the American College of Sur-
geons, 188(3), 225–230. doi:S1072751598002877
Obremskey, W. T., Molina, C. S., Collinge, C., Tor-
netta, P., Sagi, C., & Schmidt, A., . . . Browner, B.
(2013, November 13). Current practice in the initial
management of open fractures among orthopaedic
trauma surgeons. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma.
Advanced online publication. doi:10.1097/BOT
.0000000000000033
Ong, C. T., Choon, D. S., Cabrera, N. P., & Maffulli, N.
(2002). The treatment of open tibial fractures and of
tibial non-union with a novel external fixator. Injury,
33(9), 829–834. doi:S0020138302001171
Patzakis, M. J., Harvey, J. P., & Ivler, D. (1974). The role
of antibiotics in the management of open fractures.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American
Volume, 56(3), 532–541.
Patzakis, M. J., & Wilkins, J. (1989). Factors influencing
infection rate in open fracture wounds. Clinical Or-
thopaedics and Related Research, (243), 36–40.
Rodriguez, L., Jung, H. S., Goulet, J. A., Cicalo, A.,
Machado-Aranda, D. A., & Napolitano, L. M. (2014).
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Time: 23:9
Open Fracture Prophylaxis 29
Evidence-based protocol for prophylactic antibiotics
in open fractures: Improved antibiotic stewardship
with no increase in infection rates. The Journal
of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 77(3), 400–
407; discussion 407–408; quiz 524. doi:10.1097/
TA.0000000000000398
Saveli, C. C., Morgan, S. J., Belknap, R. W., Ross, E., Sta-
hel, P. F., & Chaus, G. W., . . . Price, C. S. (2013).
Prophylactic antibiotics in open fractures: A pilot
randomized clinical safety study. Journal of Or-
thopaedic Trauma, 27(10), 552–557. doi:10.1097/
BOT.0b013e31828d92ee
Shukla, S., Nixon, M., Acharya, M., Korim, M. T., &
Pandey, R. (2009). Incidence of MRSA surgical-
site infection in MRSA carriers in an orthopaedic
trauma unit. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
British Volume, 91(2), 225–228. doi:10.1302/0301-
620X.91B2.21715
Velmahos, G. C., Toutouzas, K. G., Sarkisyan, G., Chan,
L. S., Jindal, A., & Karaiskakis, M., . . . Demetriades,
D. (2002). Severe trauma is not an excuse
for prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis. Archives of
Surgery, 137(5), 537–541; discussion 541-532. doi:
sws1007
Weidenmaier, C., Goerke, C., & Wolz, C. (2012).
Staphylococcus aureus determinants for nasal colo-
nization. Trends in Microbiology, 20(5), 243–250.
doi:10.1016/j.tim.2012.03.004