0
Articles   |    
The Efficacy of Low-Pressure Lavage with Different Irrigating Solutions to Remove Adherent Bacteria from Bone
Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc; Anthony Adili, MD; Emil H. Schemitsch, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Medical Centre, 1200 Main Street West, Room 2C12, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. E-mail address: bhandari@netinc.ca
Anthony Adili, MD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON L8V 1C3, Canada
Emil H. Schemitsch, MD
Musculoskeletal Research Laboratory, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, 55 Queen Street East, Suite 800, Toronto, ON M5C 1R6, Canada. E-mail address: schemitsche@the-wire.com
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. Salary support for M. Bhandari was provided, in part, by the R.K. Fraser Foundation Research Scholarship. Funds were received in total or partial support of the research or clinical study presented in this article. The funding source was the Canadian Orthopaedic Foundation—Hip Hip Hooray.
Read in part at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Orthopaedic Research Society, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, July 3, 1999, and at the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Charlotte, North Carolina, October 22-24, 1999.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:412-412 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have suggested that high-pressure irrigation may have adverse effects on bone. However, the use of low-pressure irrigation may not remove all adherent bacteria from bone. The type of irrigating solution may be an important factor in the removal of adherent bacteria with pulsatile lavage. In this study, we compared the effects of various irrigating solutions on the number and function of osteoblasts and osteoclasts and we examined the effectiveness of these solutions in removing adherent bacteria from bone.

Methods: To examine the effect of irrigating solutions on the number and activity of osteoblasts, we isolated calvarial cells from newborn C57BI/6 mice and exposed the cells to equivalent concentrations of ethanol, povidone-iodine, liquid soap, antimicrobial wash (50 U/L of bacitracin), or chlorhexidine gluconate, for two, ten, or twenty minutes. The cells were then cultured in the presence of bone-nodule-enhancing medium (b-glycerophosphate and ascorbic acid) for twenty-one days. The medium was changed every three or four days. Mineralized nodules were stained with alizarin red S, and osteoblasts were stained with a histochemical stain for alkaline phosphatase. Osteoclasts were identified with tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase staining. In a second experiment, canine cortical tibiae were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus for six hours and subjected to different irrigating solutions with or without low-pressure lavage. Bacterial colony-forming units were quantitated under each set of conditions.

Results: Each solution resulted in a time-dependent decrease in the number of calvarial osteoblasts and osteoclasts compared with that in the controls. The 1% soap solution resulted in greater preservation of both alkaline-phosphatase activity and bone-nodule formation than did the other solutions. Moreover, the soap solution preserved the number of osteoclasts to the greatest extent. The povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine-gluconate solutions resulted in the largest decline in bone-nodule formation, alkaline-phosphatase activity, and number of osteoclasts. Low-pressure pulsatile lavage with the soap solution removed the most bacteria from the contaminated tibia when compared with either the soap solution alone or low-pressure irrigation with saline solution.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that certain solutions may be more effective in removing bacteria from bone than mechanical irrigation with saline solution alone. Among the various solutions examined, the soap solution preserved the number and activity of osteoblasts the most. Low-pressure lavage with the soap solution resulted in the greatest removal of adherent bacteria from bone.

Clinical Relevance: Meticulous débridement is regarded as the most important initial step in the management of open tibial fractures. The optimal technique for bone débridement should maximize the removal of adherent bacteria while preserving the structure and function of bone. It has been shown that low-pressure irrigation results in significantly less macroscopic and microscopic damage to bone and is as effective as high-pressure lavage in removing bacteria within three hours after contamination. However, irrigation is often delayed beyond three hours. In the current study, we report that débridement with low-pressure irrigation and detergent solutions can be effective for up to six hours after contamination.

Figures in this Article
    Meticulous débridement of contaminated soft tissues is regarded as the most important initial step in the management of open tibial fractures1-4. Reported rates of infection following severe open tibial fractures have ranged from 5% to 50%5-12. The efficacy of high-pressure irrigation in decreasing the bacterial load in soft tissues has been well established in the literature13-20. The advent of pulsatile lavage has further ­improved the removal of bacteria from soft tissues16,17,20. In principle, high-pressure pulsatile lavage provides a pulse compression phase and an interpulse decompression phase in which recoil of the soft tissues occurs, dislodging particulate matter and bacteria. The popularity and effectiveness of high-pressure pulsatile lavage of soft tissues have been extrapolated to a perceived efficacy for the débridement of bone.
    The increased use of high-pressure pulsatile lavage for fracture débridement may result in complications15,21-24. In an in vivo study of rabbits, Dirschl et al. found that high-pressure pulsatile lavage resulted in visible damage at the fracture site and in delayed healing15. In a previous study, we examined the effects of high-pressure pulsatile lavage on contaminated human tibiae in an in vitro model21. We found that high-pressure irrigation resulted in macroscopic damage to bone and carried surface bacteria into the intramedullary canal.
    The optimal technique for bone débridement should remove the maximal number of adherent bacteria yet preserve the structure and function of bone. Low-pressure pulsatile lavage has obvious potential advantages over high-pressure la­vage in terms of decreasing the degree of damage to bone, but it may remove adherent bacteria less effectively. In a subsequent study, we showed that low-pressure lavage results in significantly less damage to bone (p < 0.001) and that it is as effective as high-pressure lavage in removing bacteria within three hours after contamination22. However, when irrigation was delayed for more than three hours, low-pressure lavage was ineffective in removing bacteria.
    The ability of various solutions to remove adherent bacteria from hard surfaces has been previously reported25-29. We hypothesized that the use of certain irrigating solutions would improve the efficacy of low-pressure lavage when irrigation was delayed beyond three hours.
    The purposes of the current study were to determine the effect of various irrigating solutions on the number and function of osteoblasts and osteoclasts in vitro as well as to compare the abilities of those solutions to remove adherent bacteria from contaminated bone and to determine whether those abilities were improved by the use of low-pressure pulsatile lavage.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1:The time-dependent effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean density of calvarial cells per milliliter. The I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, NS = normal saline solution, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlorhexidine gluconate.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:The effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean percentage of alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells per plate. The white bars represent the 10% solutions, the hatched bars represent the 1% solutions, and the I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlorhexidine gluconate.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3:The effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean number of bone nodules formed per plate. The white bars represent the 10% solutions, the hatched bars represent the 1% solutions, and the I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlor­hexidine gluconate.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 4:The effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean number of tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase (TRAP)-positive cells per well. The white bars represent the 10% solutions, the hatched bars represent the 1% solutions, and the I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlorhexidine gluconate.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Data on the Removal of Adherent Bacteria
    *The data are given as the mean and the standard error of the mean. †P values for comparisons between the irrigating solution alone and low-pressure lavage with the irrigating solution.
    Irrigating SolutionResidual No. of Bacterial Colony-Forming UnitsSignificance (P Value)†
    ControlIrrigating Solution*Low-Pressure Lavage with Irrigating Solution Alone*
    Control2000
    Normal saline solution???747 ± 52.4????261 ± 19.7<0.001
    Ethanol (1%)???319 ± 13.7?????66 ± 12.7<0.001
    Povidone-iodine (1%)0.67 ± 0.33?0.33 ± 0.33>0.05
    Soap (1%)???35 ± 5.8???????0<0.001
    Antimicrobial wash (1%)???630 ± 10.533.5 ± 8.5<0.001
    Chlorhexidine gluconate (1%)0.33 ± 0.33???????0.33 ± 0.33>0.05
    Two separate sets of experiments were performed for this study. In the first set (Part One), the effects of various irrigating solutions on osteoblasts and osteoclasts were determined with cell culture. In the second set (Part Two), the efficacy of the irrigating solutions to remove adherent bacteria from bone, with or without low-pressure lavage, was evaluated.

    Part One

    Calvarial Cell Isolation

    Calvariae were harvested from three-day-old C57BI/6 mice (Charles River Laboratories, St. Constant, Quebec, Canada), as described previously30. Under low-power magnification, the parietal bones were exposed with sharp dissection of the overlying skin and subcutaneous tissue. Each calvaria was removed, minced, and resuspended in phosphate-buffered saline solution; then it was digested with collagenase (2.5 mg/mL) for four hours at 37°C. The resulting cells were washed, pelleted, and seeded into T-50 vented flasks at a concentration of 1 ¥ 106 cells/flask (Becton Dickinson, Lincoln Park, New Jersey). The calvaria-derived bone cells were then grown for seven days in alpha-minimum essential medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco BRL, Burlington, Ontario, Canada) prior to use. The cells were plated on 35-mm plates at a density of 5 ¥ 104 cells/plate30.

    Irrigating Solutions

    The following irrigating solutions were examined: 10% and 1% ethanol, 10% and 1% povidone-iodine (Becton Dickinson Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), 4% and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (Becton Dickinson Canada), 10% and 1% liquid soap (Huntington Laboratories, Huntington, Indiana), 10% and 1% antimicrobial wash (50 U/L of bacitracin), and normal saline solution (control). The soap solution was prepared by injecting 100 mL of liquid soap into 1 L of normal saline solution. We chose concentrations that are used clinically for the irrigation of wounds and fractures, and we chose irrigating solutions and relative concentrations that are comparable with those found in the literature25,31-34.
    In the first set of experiments, 35-mm plates of cultured calvarial cells at day 5 were exposed for two minutes (thirty plates), ten minutes (thirty plates), or twenty minutes (thirty plates) to 3 mL of the higher concentration of each irrigating solution (five experimental solutions and one control [saline] solution). Thus, for each of the six solutions, there were five plates for each of three time points (6 ¥ 5 ¥ 3 = 90 plates). Twenty-four hours after exposure, the cells were trypsinized (0.5% trypsin) and were stained with trypan blue. The total number of viable cells was quantified with light microscopy and a hemocytometer. Since the effect of the higher concentrations was maximal at two minutes, this time point was used for all subsequent experiments.
    In subsequent experiments, the effect of irrigating solutions on the activity of osteoblasts and osteoclasts was evaluated by exposing 35-mm plates (five plates for each solution) with calvarial cells to each of six solutions at two concentrations (1% and 10%) for two minutes at day 5. At various time points thereafter, the number of alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells (day 21), the number of bone nodules (day 21), and the number of tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase-positive cells (days 14, 15, and 16) were quantified by a blinded observer. Thus, a total of 180 tissue-culture plates were used for this experiment (6 solutions ¥ 2 concentrations ¥ 5 plates per solution ¥ 3 outcome measures = 180 plates).

    Alkaline-Phosphatase Assay

    Osteoblasts were identified histochemically with alkaline-phosphatase staining (Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, Missouri)30,35. The cells were fixed with 60% citrate-buffered acetone for forty-five seconds. The diazonium salt solution was prepared by dissolving 12 mg of fast blue salt in 50 mL of 0.01% alkaline naphthol AS-MX phosphate. The cells were immersed in the alkaline-dye mixture for approximately thirty minutes and then were counterstained with a hematoxylin solution. The osteoblasts were identified by visible cytoplasmic staining of the precipitated azo dye at the sites of alkaline-phosphatase activity. The proportion of alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells in a defined area (0.25 mm2) was quantified by light microscopy at a magnification of 100 times.

    Bone-Nodule Assay

    Since the primary function of the osteoblast is to form bone, osteogenic capacity now appears to be the most reliable and unambiguous parameter for characterizing a cell type as an osteoblast. Bellows et al. showed that enzymatically released cells from fetal calvariae are capable of forming bone-like tissue when grown in the presence of ascorbic acid and organic phosphate35.
    Calvarial cells were cultured in alpha-minimum essential medium, supplemented with 1% nonessential amino ­acids (Gibco BRL), 10-mM b-glycerophosphate (Sigma Chem­ical), and 0.5-mM ascorbic acid (Sigma Chemical) at an initial cell concentration of 5.0 ¥ 104 cells/dish. The medium was exchanged every three or four days. At twenty-one days, the cells were fixed in 10% formalin and bone nodules were stained with 0.2% alizarin red S (Sigma Chemical). Nodules were identified as red-staining structures and were quantified under low-power light microscopy (magnification of twenty times)30.

    Tartrate-Resistant Acid-Phosphatase Assay

    Osteoclast differentiation was assessed in co-cultures of murine calvarial cells and osteoclast precursors obtained from the bone marrow of thirty-five-day-old Swiss Webster mice (Charles River Laboratories). Briefly, calvarial cells were plated on Thermanox discs in twenty-four-well tissue-culture plates (Becton Dickinson) at a density of 4 ¥ 105 cells/well and expanded for five to seven days in alpha-minimum essential medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin. On day 7, osteoclast precursors, obtained from the femoral bone marrow of Swiss Webster mice, were co-cultured with the calvarial cells at a plating density of 2 ¥ 105 cells/well. All co-cultures were performed in phenol-red-free minimum essential medium (Gibco BRL). The medium was changed every three days. On day 9 of co-culture, the cells were stained for tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase activity with use of a commercially available assay (assay 386; Sigma Chemical). ­Osteoclasts were identified as red tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase­-positive multinucleated cells and were quantified under low-power light microscopy (magnification of 100 times) by a blinded observer.

    Part Two

    Preparation and Contamination of Canine Tibiae

    Fourteen tibiae from seven dogs were excised in their entirety, and all soft tissues except the periosteum were removed. Fifty-two 10-mm transverse cut sections from the diaphyses of the fourteen canine tibiae (four sections per tibia) were ­obtained with use of a standard handheld oscillating saw (Stryker ­Instruments, Kalamazoo, Michigan) fitted with a sterile number-15 blade. The surface of each cut section was contaminated with more than 108Staphylococcus aureus organisms per millimeter (ATCC 29213; American Type Culture Collection [ATCC], Rockville, Maryland) in a biologic sterility hood.

    Pulsatile Lavage

    Six hours after bacterial contamination, the fifty-two contaminated transverse sections of canine tibiae were subjected to either the irrigating solution without low-pressure lavage (twenty-four sections) or irrigating solution with low-pressure pulsatile lavage (twenty-four sections), or they served as controls (four sections). A standard battery-operated ­pulsatile-lavage system (Surgilav Plus Debridement System; Stryker ­Instruments) with a multi-orifice (four-hole) tip (tip 207-58; Stryker Instruments), which delivered four streams of irrigating solution perpendicular to the surface of the bone, was used for all experiments. The irrigating tip was held approx­imately 5 cm from the surface of the bone for both high-pressure­ and low-pressure irrigation procedures. This lavage system has two settings (high and low pressure) and produces a higher peak force than most other commercially available systems at the high-pressure setting. Moreover, at the low-pressure setting the system delivers 14 psi (96.6 kPa) of pressure (according to the laboratory testing at Stryker Canada [Burlington, Ontario, Canada]) with 550 pulsations per minute. Each specimen was irrigated with a total of 500 mL of normal saline solution. The choice of 14 psi for low-pressure irrigation was based on three factors: (1) 14 psi is the amount of pressure delivered by the Stryker Surgilav Plus low-pressure setting with the standard four-hole tip, (2) there is no agreement in the literature regarding the absolute definition of low-pressure irrigation, and (3) we wanted our experimental protocols to be consistent with those used previously in this field21,22.

    Bacterial Cultures

    After irrigation with or without low-pressure lavage, each canine tibial specimen was placed in 5 mL of Luria broth (10 g of bacto-tryptone, 5 g of bacto-yeast extract, and 10 g of sodium chloride) with 1.5% agar (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Michigan). Each 10-mL test tube of broth was in­cubated at 37C with constant stirring for six hours on an electric test-tube stirrer (200 rpm). At six hours, 100 mL of supernatant from each specimen was plated on blood agar (Columbia base agar with 5% defibrinated horse blood) with use of a sterile loop and was incubated at 37C for twenty-four hours. Colony-forming units of Staphylococcus aureus were counted after ­incubation.

    Statistical Analysis

    The Student t test was used for comparisons between two independent continuous variables. Single-factor analysis of variance was used to compare the means of more than two independent groups. A Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. All tests were two-tailed, and a p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Continuous var­iables were expressed as means and standard errors of the mean.

    Part One: Effects of Irrigating Solutions on Osteoblasts and Osteoclasts

    Duration of Exposure to Irrigating Solutions

    Exposure of the calvarial cells for two minutes to 10% ethanol, 10% povidone-iodine, 10% antimicrobial wash, or 4% chlorhexidine gluconate resulted in cell-density decreases of 70% (p < 0.001), 63% (p < 0.001), 70% (p < 0.001), or 69% (p < 0.001), respectively (Fig. 1). The cells treated with normal saline solution and the soap solution did not significantly decrease in number when compared with the controls (grown in minimum essential medium) (p = 0.34 and 0.44, respectively). Cell density continued to decline with increased exposure (ten and twenty minutes) to the irrigating solutions (Fig. 1). Since the effect of most irrigating solutions was near maximal after as little as two minutes of ex­posure to the calvarial cells, this time-period was used for all subsequent experiments.

    Effects on Alkaline-Phosphatase Staining (Osteoblast Number)

    Alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells were used as markers for osteoblasts. While exposure to all five experimental irrigating solutions resulted in a decreased proportion of alkaline-phosphatase­-positive cells compared with that after exposure to the saline control (p < 0.001), the soap solution was most effective in limiting this decline (Fig. 2). Moreover, the 10% irrigating solutions (and the 4% chlorhexidine-gluconate ­solution) decreased the proportion of alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells more than did the 1% irrigating solutions (p < 0.01). At the higher concentrations, irrigating solutions decreased the percentage of alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells by as much as 99% (povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate) and as little as 42% (soap) (Fig. 2).

    Effects on Bone-Nodule Formation (Osteoblast Function)

    To compare the effects of various irrigating solutions on osteoblast activity, the amount of bone-nodule formation with each solution was quantitated. Similar to their effects on the number of osteoblasts, the various irrigating solutions significantly decreased bone-nodule formation (p < 0.001) (Fig. 3). The 1% soap solution was the only one that did not significantly decrease the number of bone nodules when compared with the saline control (p = 0.75). At higher concentrations, all irrigating solutions resulted in greater inhibition of bone-nodule formation (p < 0.001) (Fig. 3).

    Effects on Tartrate-Resistant Acid-Phosphatase Staining (Osteoclast Number)

    Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase, an enzyme found in the cytoplasm of osteoclasts, was stained to quantitate the number of osteoclasts. All irrigating solutions decreased the number of tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase-positive cells when compared with the saline control (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4). Specifically, the reduction in the number of osteoclasts ranged from as low as 18% (1% soap solution) to as high as 97% (10% povidone-iodine solution) (Fig. 4). The higher-concentration solutions (10% and 4%) inhibited osteoclasts more than did the lower-concentration solutions (1%).

    Part Two: Efficacy of Irrigating Solutions, with and without Pulsatile Lavage, in Removing Adherent Bacteria

    Irrigating Solutions without Low-Pressure Lavage

    Following a six-hour incubation period, a two-minute exposure to each of the six irrigating solutions resulted a significant removal of bacteria from bone (p < 0.001) (Table I). Moreover, significant differences in the magnitude of the effect were observed among the solutions (analysis of variance, p < 0.01). The fewest numbers of residual bacterial colony-forming units were found after exposure to the povidone-iodine (mean, 0.67 colony-forming unit), chlorhexidine gluconate (mean, 0.33 colony-forming unit), and soap solutions (mean, thirty-five colony-forming units). Alternatively, the least effective solutions were the normal saline solution and the antimicrobial solution.

    Irrigating Solutions with Low-Pressure Lavage

    The efficacy of four of the six irrigating solutions, with regard to bacterial removal from bone, was improved when the solution was applied to the surface of the bone under low pressure (Table I). Low-pressure irrigation of bone with normal saline, ethanol, antimicrobial, and soap solutions resulted in 2.9, 4.8, 18.8, and thirty-five-fold decreases, respectively, in the number of remaining bacteria when compared with irrigation without low-pressure pulsatile lavage. Moreover, no bacterial growth was observed following low-pressure pulsatile lavage with soap solution. Low-pressure irrigation with povidone-iodine­ and chlorhexidine-gluconate solutions resulted in near complete removal of all adherent bacteria to bone (mean and standard error of the mean for both, 0.33 ± 0.33 colony-forming­ unit).

    Study Results

    With in vitro bone-nodule, alkaline-phosphatase, and tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase assays, we showed that irrigating solutions resulted in both a time and a dose-dependent decrease in calvarial cell density, that soap solution resulted in the smallest decline in the number and function of osteoblasts, and that soap solution resulted in the smallest decline in the number of osteoclasts. Additionally, with an in vitro model of contaminated canine cortical bone, we showed that low-pressure­ lavage with saline solution alone results in significant (but not complete) removal of residual bacteria adherent to bone and that the addition of soap solution results in the complete removal of adherent bacteria from bone following a six-hour delay.

    Effects of Irrigating Solutions on Bone

    The effects of povidone-iodine (Betadine) and bacitracin solutions on cultured chick osteoblasts have previously been reported32. Kaysinger et al. found that a two-minute exposure to 5% Betadine solution resulted in a 30% decline in lactate production (a marker of glycolytic energy metabolism) and a 90% decline in DNA synthesis (a marker of cell number)32. These findings support our observation that the 1% povidone­-iodine solution resulted in decreases in cal­varial cell density, osteoblast numbers, and bone-nodule f­ormation. Kaysinger et al. did not detect any significant decrease in lactate production and they detected less than a 25% decline in osteoblast DNA synthesis with antimicrobial solutions (50,000 U/L of bacitracin)32, in contrast to the dramatic effects of the povidone-iodine solution. Our findings suggest that antimicrobial wash inhibited the formation of bone and decreased the number of osteoblasts to the same degree as the povidone-iodine solution. The differences that we observed might have been related, in part, to the fact that we used an in vitro murine cell-culture system, whereas Kaysinger et al. used a chick osteoblast-culture system.
    The effects of ethanol on bone metabolism have pre­viously been reported36,37. Klein et al. examined the effect of ethanol on the number of osteoblasts in an osteoblast-like osteosarcoma cell line and found a dose-dependent inhibition of DNA synthesis37. However, they did not find a decline in alkaline­-phosphatase activity. Chavassieux et al. evaluated the dose-dependent effects of ethanol on human osteoblastic cells and reported a significant reduction in alkaline-phosphatase activity36, contrary to the findings of Klein et al. We found a significant reduction in alkaline-phosphatase staining and a reduction in bone-nodule formation after exposure to ethanol. These findings suggest a direct toxic effect of ethanol on osteoblasts.
    The effect of soap or other detergents on bone formation has not been previously quantified in the literature, to our knowledge. Tarbox et al., in an in vivo study of thirty Sprague­ Dawley rats, found that benzalkonium chloride (a cationic detergent) did not alter the histologic appearance of bone or cartilage38. However, they did not quantify bone-formation­ parameters such as osteoid thickness or osteoblast surface with well-established histomorphometric techniques. Our results suggest that, at the concentrations tested, soap s­olutions preserve osteoblast activity (bone-nodule formation) despite decreasing the overall number of available osteoblasts (alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells). Moreover, the finding that soap solution did not decrease overall calvarial cell density (at the two-minute exposure) but did decrease the number of osteoblasts is likely explained by increases in another cell type. Osteoblasts are derived from a stem cell that has the potential to differentiate into adipocytes, chondrocytes, fibroblasts, and muscle cells. There have been previous reports of an inverse relationship between adipocytes and osteoblasts39,40.
    It has been well established that osteoblast and osteoclast interactions are coupled41. We were unable to find any previous studies that examined the effect of irrigating solutions on the number or activity of osteoclasts. Our results suggest that, among the irrigating solutions examined, the soap solution best preserved osteoclast numbers. This finding is important given the coupled interactions of bone formation and bone resorption.

    Low-Pressure Irrigation of Bone

    High-pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated soft tissues has been extensively tested13-20,31,42-44. It is believed that the elastic recoil of soft tissues between high-pressure pulses dislodges and removes contaminants from the wound14,18. Previous investigators have used pressures between 1 and 75 psi (6.9 and 517.5 kPa) for the débridement of wounds14,18.
    There are emerging reports of the effects of high-pressure­ lavage on bone. Dirschl et al., in a rabbit femoral model of fracture-healing, reported that high-pressure lavage resulted in visible damage to bone, a trend toward decreased early new-bone formation, and significantly less viable bone at the fracture site compared with controls (p < 0.001)15. Moreover, in their study, 30% of the osteotomy sites treated with high-pressure lavage failed to unite compared with 20% of the sites treated with low-pressure lavage and the sites in the control group. Furthermore, in a previous study, we showed that high-pressure lavage (70 psi [483 kPa]) visibly damages the marrow contents to a depth 4 cm from the lavage site21. West et al. supported these findings with electron microscopy; they demonstrated that high-pressure lavage left vacant interstices of bone devoid of cells23.
    It has previously been reported that low-pressure pulsatile lavage with normal saline solution is as effective as high-pressure lavage in removing adherent bacteria from bone if the bone is debrided within three hours after contamination22.

    Removal of Adherent Bacteria

    While several investigators have evaluated the efficacy of various irrigating solutions in removing adherent bacteria from soft tissues25,28,31,33,38,42,44-47, few have examined their efficacy on hard surfaces26,29,34. Anglen et al. examined the ability of pressure irrigation with soap, antimicrobial (bacitracin), and normal saline solutions to remove Staphylococcus aureus from cortical bone fragments26. They found pressure irrigation with soap solutions to be the most effective method of reducing residual colony counts of bacteria; however, the effective pressure used in their study was not reported. Moreover, it is unclear whether they allowed a time delay before irrigating the bone pieces. White et al. evaluated the antimicrobial activity of 2.0% chlorhexidine rinses during root canals and reported ­improved antimicrobial activity for up to seventy-two hours after rinses34. Gravett et al., in a randomized trial of 500 consecutive wound irrigations with either 1% povidone-iodine or normal saline solution, found that 1% povidone-iodine solution significantly reduced the risk of wound infection42. Unfortunately, they did not report the efficacy of the 1% povidone-iodine solution in a subgroup of patients with exposed bone.

    Limitations of the Current Study

    While in vitro studies can provide important information regarding the mechanisms of bone metabolism, it remains unclear whether the substantially better bacterial removal by low-pressure lavage with soap solution in the current study can be extrapolated to grossly contaminated open fractures of the tibia. Future studies should be performed to examine the ability of soaps (and other detergents) to remove bacteria from bone in in vivo models of fractures contaminated with a variety of different bacteria. These additional studies will allow investigators to further develop the biologic rationale for conducting clinical trials in this area.
    In conclusion, while there are reports in the literature favoring many of the irrigating solutions used in the current study, our results suggest that soap solutions delivered under low pressure are most effective in removing adherent bacteria and least disruptive to osteoblasts and osteoclasts. The mechanism of soap’s action on bone lies primarily in its ability to form micelles. Micelles of soap (and of other such detergents) have hydrophilic (water-attracting) and hydrophobic (water-repelling) ends. The soap micelles’ hydrophilic ends surround bacteria and interfere with bacterial adherence to bone.
    Chapman M. Open fractures. In: Rockwood CA Jr, Green DP, Bucholz RW, editorsRockwood and Green’s fractures in adults. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1991. Ed 3, p 223-64 
     
    Esterhai JL Jr, and Queenan J: Management of soft tissue wounds associated with type III open fractures. Orthop Clin North Am,1991.22: 427-32, 22427  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Gustilo RB; Merkow RL; and Templeman D : The management of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1990.72: 299-304, 72299  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Patzakis MJ: Management of open fracture wounds. Inst Course Lect,1987.36: 367-9, 36367  1987 
     
    Bhandari M; Guyatt GH; Tong D; Adili A; and Shaughnessy SG: Reamed versus nonreamed intramedullary nailing of lower extremity long bone fractures: a systematic overview and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma,2000.14: 2-9, 142  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Gustilo RB; Mendoza RM; and Williams DN: Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma,1984.24: 742-6, 24742  1984  [PubMed]
     
    Henley MB; Chapman JR; Agel J; Harvey EJ; Whorton AM; and Swiontkowski MF: Treatment of II, IIIA, and IIIB open fractures of the tibial shaft: a prospective comparison of unreamed interlocking intramedullary nails and half-pin external fixators. J Orthop Trauma,1998.12: 1-7, 121  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Holbrook JL; Swiontkowksi MF; and Sanders R: Treatment of open fractures of the tibial shaft: Ender nailing versus external fixation. A randomized, prospective comparison. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1989.71: 1231-8, 711231  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Keating JF; O’Brien PJ; Blachut PA; Meek RN; and Broekhuyse HM: Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1997.79: 334-41, 79334  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Swanson TV; Spiegel JD; Sutherland TB; Bray TJ; and Chapman MW: A prospective, comparative study of the Lottes nail versus external fixation in 100 open tibia fractures. Orthop Trans,1990.14: 716-7, 14716  1990 
     
    Tornetta P 3d; Bergman M; Watnik N; Berkowitz G; and Steuer J: Treatment of grade-IIIb open tibial fractures. A prospective, randomised comparison of external fixation and non-reamed locked nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1994.76: 13-9, 7613  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Tu YK; Lin CH; Su JI; Hsu DT; and Chen RJ : Unreamed interlocking nail versus external fixator for open type III tibia fractures. J Trauma,1995.39: 361-7, 39361  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Bhaskar SN; Cutright DE; Runsuck EE; and Gross A: Pulsating water jet devices in debridement of combat wounds. Mil Med,1971.136: 264-6, 136264  1971  [PubMed]
     
    Brown LL; Shelton HT; Bornside GH; and Cohn I Jr: Evaluation of wound irrigation by pulsatile jet and conventional methods. Ann Surg,1978.187: 170-3, 187170  1978  [PubMed]
     
    Dirschl DR; Duff GP; Dahners LE; Edin M; Rahn BA; and Miclau T: High pressure pulsatile lavage irrigation of intraarticular fractures: effects on fracture healing. J Orthop Trauma,1998.12: 460-3, 12460  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Gross A; Bhaskar SN; Cutright DE; Beasley JD 3d; and Perez B: The effect of pulsating water jet lavage on experimental contaminated wounds. J Oral Surg,1971.29: 187-90, 29187  1971  [PubMed]
     
    Gross A; Cutright DE; and Bhaskar SN : Effectiveness of pulsating water jet lavage in treatment of contaminated crushed wounds. Am J Surg,1972.124: 373-7, 124373  1972  [PubMed]
     
    Hamer ML; Robson MC; Krizek TJ; and Southwick WO : Quantitative bacterial analysis of comparative wound irrigations. Ann Surg,1975.181: 819-22, 181819  1975  [PubMed]
     
    Rodeheaver GT; Pettry O; Thacker JG; Edgerton MT; and Edlich RF: Wound cleansing by high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet,1975.141: 357-62, 141357  1975  [PubMed]
     
    Sobel JW, and Goldberg VM. : Pulsatile irrigation in orthopedics. Orthopedics,1985.8: 1019-22, 81019  1985  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Adili A; and Lachowski RJ: High pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated human tibiae: an in vitro study. J Orthop Trauma,1998.12: 479-84, 12479  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Schemitsch EH; Adili A; Lachowski RJ; and Shaughnessy SG: High and low pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated tibial fractures: an in vitro study of bacterial adherence and bone damage. J Orthop Trauma,1999.13: 526-33, 13526  1999  [PubMed]
     
    West BR; Nichter LS; Halpern DE; Nimni ME; Cheung DT; and Zhou ZY: Ultrasound debridement of trabeculated bone: effective and atraumatic. Plast Reconst Surg.,1994.93: 561-6, 93561  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Wheeler CB; Rodeheaver GT; Thacker JG; Edgerton MT; and Edlich RF: Side-effects­ of high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet,1976.143: 775-8, 143775  1976  [PubMed]
     
    Anglen JO; Apostoles S; Christensen G; and Gainor B: The efficacy of various irrigation solutions in removing slime-producing Staphylococcus. J Orthop Trauma,1994.8: 390-6, 8390  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Anglen J; Apostoles PS; Christensen G; Gainor B; and Lane J: Removal of surface bacteria by irrigation. J Orthop Res,1996.14: 251-4, 14251  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Dirschl DR, and Wilson FC: Topical antibiotic irrigation in the prophylaxis of operative wound infections in orthopaedic surgery. Orthop Clin North Am,1991.22: 419-26, 22419  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Gainor BJ; Hockman DE; Anglen JO; Christensen G; and Simpson WA: Benzalkonium chloride: a potential disinfecting irrigation solution. J Orthop Trauma,1997.11: 121-5, 11121  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Moussa FW; Gainor BJ; Anglen JO; Christensen G; and Simpson WA: Disinfecting agents for removing adherent bacteria from orthopaedic hardware. Clin Orthop,1996.329: 255-62, 329255  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Hirsh J; Weitz JI; Young E; Venner TJ; and Shaughnessy SG: The effects of standard and low molecular weight heparin on bone nodule formation in vitro. Thromb Haemost,1998.80: 413-7, 80413  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Dire DJ, and Welsh AP: A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med,1990.19: 704-8, 19704  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Kaysinger KK; Nicholson NC; Ramp WK; and Kellam JF: Toxic effects of wound irrigation solutions on cultured tibiae and osteoblasts. J Orthop Trauma,1995.9: 303-11, 9303  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Rosenstein BD; Wilson FC; and Funderburk CH: The use of bacitracin irrigation to prevent infection in postoperative skeletal wounds. An experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1989.71: 427-30, 71427  1989  [PubMed]
     
    White RR; Hays GL; and Janer LR: Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod,1997.23: 229-31, 23229  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Bellows CG; Aubin JE; Heersche JN; and Antosz ME: Mineralized bone nodules formed in vitro from enzymatically released rat calvaria cell populations. Calcif Tissue Int,1986.38: 143-54, 38143  1986  [PubMed]
     
    Chavassieux P; Serre CM; Vergnaud P; Delmas PD; and Meunier PJ: In vitro evaluation of dose-effects of ethanol on human osteoblastic cells. Bone Miner,1993.22: 95-103, 2295  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Klein RF; Fausti KA; and Carlos AS: Ethanol inhibits human osteoblastic cell proliferation. Alcohol Clin Exp Res,1996.20: 572-8, 20572  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Tarbox BB; Conroy BP; Malicky ES; Moussa FW; Hockman DE; Anglen JO; Simpson WA; Adelstein EH; Christensen G; and Gainor BJ : Benzalkonium chloride. A potential disinfecting irrigation solution for orthopaedic wounds. Clin Orthop,1998.346: 255-61, 346255  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Beresford JN; Bennett JH; Devlin C; Leboy PS; and Owen ME : Evidence for an inverse relationship between the differentiation of adipocytic and osteogenic cells in rat marrow stromal cell cultures. J Cell Sci,1992.102: 341-51, 102341  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Walton K; Hirsh J; Weitz J; and Shaughnessy S : Differential effects of heparin and low molecular weight heparin on osteoblastogenesis and adipogenesis in vitro. Blood.,1998.92: 1474, 921474  1998 
     
    Chambers TJ; McSheehy PM; Thomson BM; and Fuller K: The effect of ­calcium-regulating hormones and prostaglandins on bone resorption by ­osteoclasts disaggregated from neonatal rabbit bones. Endocrinology,1985.116: 234-9, 116234  1985  [PubMed]
     
    Gravett A; Sterner S; Clinton JE; and Ruiz E: A trial of povidone-iodine in the prevention of infection in sutured lacerations. Ann Emerg Med,1987.16: 167-71, 16167  1987  [PubMed]
     
    McDonald WS, and Nichter LS: Debridement of bacterial and particulate-contaminate­d wounds. Ann Plast Surg,1994.33: 142-7, 33142  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Platt J, and Bucknall RA: An experimental evaluation of antiseptic wound irrigation. J Hosp Infect,1984.5: 181-8, 5181  1984  [PubMed]
     
    Conroy BP; Anglen JO; Simpson WA; Christensen G; Phaup G; Yeager R; and Gainor BJ. : Comparison of castile soap, benzalkonium chloride, and bacitracin as irrigation solutions for complex contaminated orthopaedic wounds. J Orthop Trauma,1999.13: 332-7, 13332  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Edlich RF; Custer J; Madden J; Dajani AS; Rogers W; and Wangensteen OH: Studies in management of the contaminated wound. 3. Assessment of the effectiveness of irrigation with antiseptic agents. Am J Surg,1969.118: 21-30, 11821  1969  [PubMed]
     
    Scherr DD, and Dodd TA: In vitro bacteriological evaluation of the effectiveness of antimicrobial irrigating solutions. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1976.58: 119-22, 58119  1976  [PubMed]
     

    Submit a comment

    Topics

    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1:The time-dependent effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean density of calvarial cells per milliliter. The I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, NS = normal saline solution, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlorhexidine gluconate.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:The effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean percentage of alkaline-phosphatase-positive cells per plate. The white bars represent the 10% solutions, the hatched bars represent the 1% solutions, and the I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlorhexidine gluconate.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3:The effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean number of bone nodules formed per plate. The white bars represent the 10% solutions, the hatched bars represent the 1% solutions, and the I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlor­hexidine gluconate.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 4:The effect of the different irrigating solutions on the mean number of tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase (TRAP)-positive cells per well. The white bars represent the 10% solutions, the hatched bars represent the 1% solutions, and the I-bars represent the standard errors of the mean. C = control, E = ethanol, P = povidone-iodine, S = soap, W = antimicrobial wash, and CHX = chlorhexidine gluconate.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Data on the Removal of Adherent Bacteria
    *The data are given as the mean and the standard error of the mean. †P values for comparisons between the irrigating solution alone and low-pressure lavage with the irrigating solution.
    Irrigating SolutionResidual No. of Bacterial Colony-Forming UnitsSignificance (P Value)†
    ControlIrrigating Solution*Low-Pressure Lavage with Irrigating Solution Alone*
    Control2000
    Normal saline solution???747 ± 52.4????261 ± 19.7<0.001
    Ethanol (1%)???319 ± 13.7?????66 ± 12.7<0.001
    Povidone-iodine (1%)0.67 ± 0.33?0.33 ± 0.33>0.05
    Soap (1%)???35 ± 5.8???????0<0.001
    Antimicrobial wash (1%)???630 ± 10.533.5 ± 8.5<0.001
    Chlorhexidine gluconate (1%)0.33 ± 0.33???????0.33 ± 0.33>0.05
    Chapman M. Open fractures. In: Rockwood CA Jr, Green DP, Bucholz RW, editorsRockwood and Green’s fractures in adults. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1991. Ed 3, p 223-64 
     
    Esterhai JL Jr, and Queenan J: Management of soft tissue wounds associated with type III open fractures. Orthop Clin North Am,1991.22: 427-32, 22427  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Gustilo RB; Merkow RL; and Templeman D : The management of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1990.72: 299-304, 72299  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Patzakis MJ: Management of open fracture wounds. Inst Course Lect,1987.36: 367-9, 36367  1987 
     
    Bhandari M; Guyatt GH; Tong D; Adili A; and Shaughnessy SG: Reamed versus nonreamed intramedullary nailing of lower extremity long bone fractures: a systematic overview and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma,2000.14: 2-9, 142  2000  [PubMed]
     
    Gustilo RB; Mendoza RM; and Williams DN: Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma,1984.24: 742-6, 24742  1984  [PubMed]
     
    Henley MB; Chapman JR; Agel J; Harvey EJ; Whorton AM; and Swiontkowski MF: Treatment of II, IIIA, and IIIB open fractures of the tibial shaft: a prospective comparison of unreamed interlocking intramedullary nails and half-pin external fixators. J Orthop Trauma,1998.12: 1-7, 121  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Holbrook JL; Swiontkowksi MF; and Sanders R: Treatment of open fractures of the tibial shaft: Ender nailing versus external fixation. A randomized, prospective comparison. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1989.71: 1231-8, 711231  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Keating JF; O’Brien PJ; Blachut PA; Meek RN; and Broekhuyse HM: Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1997.79: 334-41, 79334  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Swanson TV; Spiegel JD; Sutherland TB; Bray TJ; and Chapman MW: A prospective, comparative study of the Lottes nail versus external fixation in 100 open tibia fractures. Orthop Trans,1990.14: 716-7, 14716  1990 
     
    Tornetta P 3d; Bergman M; Watnik N; Berkowitz G; and Steuer J: Treatment of grade-IIIb open tibial fractures. A prospective, randomised comparison of external fixation and non-reamed locked nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br,1994.76: 13-9, 7613  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Tu YK; Lin CH; Su JI; Hsu DT; and Chen RJ : Unreamed interlocking nail versus external fixator for open type III tibia fractures. J Trauma,1995.39: 361-7, 39361  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Bhaskar SN; Cutright DE; Runsuck EE; and Gross A: Pulsating water jet devices in debridement of combat wounds. Mil Med,1971.136: 264-6, 136264  1971  [PubMed]
     
    Brown LL; Shelton HT; Bornside GH; and Cohn I Jr: Evaluation of wound irrigation by pulsatile jet and conventional methods. Ann Surg,1978.187: 170-3, 187170  1978  [PubMed]
     
    Dirschl DR; Duff GP; Dahners LE; Edin M; Rahn BA; and Miclau T: High pressure pulsatile lavage irrigation of intraarticular fractures: effects on fracture healing. J Orthop Trauma,1998.12: 460-3, 12460  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Gross A; Bhaskar SN; Cutright DE; Beasley JD 3d; and Perez B: The effect of pulsating water jet lavage on experimental contaminated wounds. J Oral Surg,1971.29: 187-90, 29187  1971  [PubMed]
     
    Gross A; Cutright DE; and Bhaskar SN : Effectiveness of pulsating water jet lavage in treatment of contaminated crushed wounds. Am J Surg,1972.124: 373-7, 124373  1972  [PubMed]
     
    Hamer ML; Robson MC; Krizek TJ; and Southwick WO : Quantitative bacterial analysis of comparative wound irrigations. Ann Surg,1975.181: 819-22, 181819  1975  [PubMed]
     
    Rodeheaver GT; Pettry O; Thacker JG; Edgerton MT; and Edlich RF: Wound cleansing by high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet,1975.141: 357-62, 141357  1975  [PubMed]
     
    Sobel JW, and Goldberg VM. : Pulsatile irrigation in orthopedics. Orthopedics,1985.8: 1019-22, 81019  1985  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Adili A; and Lachowski RJ: High pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated human tibiae: an in vitro study. J Orthop Trauma,1998.12: 479-84, 12479  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Schemitsch EH; Adili A; Lachowski RJ; and Shaughnessy SG: High and low pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated tibial fractures: an in vitro study of bacterial adherence and bone damage. J Orthop Trauma,1999.13: 526-33, 13526  1999  [PubMed]
     
    West BR; Nichter LS; Halpern DE; Nimni ME; Cheung DT; and Zhou ZY: Ultrasound debridement of trabeculated bone: effective and atraumatic. Plast Reconst Surg.,1994.93: 561-6, 93561  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Wheeler CB; Rodeheaver GT; Thacker JG; Edgerton MT; and Edlich RF: Side-effects­ of high pressure irrigation. Surg Gynecol Obstet,1976.143: 775-8, 143775  1976  [PubMed]
     
    Anglen JO; Apostoles S; Christensen G; and Gainor B: The efficacy of various irrigation solutions in removing slime-producing Staphylococcus. J Orthop Trauma,1994.8: 390-6, 8390  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Anglen J; Apostoles PS; Christensen G; Gainor B; and Lane J: Removal of surface bacteria by irrigation. J Orthop Res,1996.14: 251-4, 14251  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Dirschl DR, and Wilson FC: Topical antibiotic irrigation in the prophylaxis of operative wound infections in orthopaedic surgery. Orthop Clin North Am,1991.22: 419-26, 22419  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Gainor BJ; Hockman DE; Anglen JO; Christensen G; and Simpson WA: Benzalkonium chloride: a potential disinfecting irrigation solution. J Orthop Trauma,1997.11: 121-5, 11121  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Moussa FW; Gainor BJ; Anglen JO; Christensen G; and Simpson WA: Disinfecting agents for removing adherent bacteria from orthopaedic hardware. Clin Orthop,1996.329: 255-62, 329255  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Hirsh J; Weitz JI; Young E; Venner TJ; and Shaughnessy SG: The effects of standard and low molecular weight heparin on bone nodule formation in vitro. Thromb Haemost,1998.80: 413-7, 80413  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Dire DJ, and Welsh AP: A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med,1990.19: 704-8, 19704  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Kaysinger KK; Nicholson NC; Ramp WK; and Kellam JF: Toxic effects of wound irrigation solutions on cultured tibiae and osteoblasts. J Orthop Trauma,1995.9: 303-11, 9303  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Rosenstein BD; Wilson FC; and Funderburk CH: The use of bacitracin irrigation to prevent infection in postoperative skeletal wounds. An experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1989.71: 427-30, 71427  1989  [PubMed]
     
    White RR; Hays GL; and Janer LR: Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod,1997.23: 229-31, 23229  1997  [PubMed]
     
    Bellows CG; Aubin JE; Heersche JN; and Antosz ME: Mineralized bone nodules formed in vitro from enzymatically released rat calvaria cell populations. Calcif Tissue Int,1986.38: 143-54, 38143  1986  [PubMed]
     
    Chavassieux P; Serre CM; Vergnaud P; Delmas PD; and Meunier PJ: In vitro evaluation of dose-effects of ethanol on human osteoblastic cells. Bone Miner,1993.22: 95-103, 2295  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Klein RF; Fausti KA; and Carlos AS: Ethanol inhibits human osteoblastic cell proliferation. Alcohol Clin Exp Res,1996.20: 572-8, 20572  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Tarbox BB; Conroy BP; Malicky ES; Moussa FW; Hockman DE; Anglen JO; Simpson WA; Adelstein EH; Christensen G; and Gainor BJ : Benzalkonium chloride. A potential disinfecting irrigation solution for orthopaedic wounds. Clin Orthop,1998.346: 255-61, 346255  1998  [PubMed]
     
    Beresford JN; Bennett JH; Devlin C; Leboy PS; and Owen ME : Evidence for an inverse relationship between the differentiation of adipocytic and osteogenic cells in rat marrow stromal cell cultures. J Cell Sci,1992.102: 341-51, 102341  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Bhandari M; Walton K; Hirsh J; Weitz J; and Shaughnessy S : Differential effects of heparin and low molecular weight heparin on osteoblastogenesis and adipogenesis in vitro. Blood.,1998.92: 1474, 921474  1998 
     
    Chambers TJ; McSheehy PM; Thomson BM; and Fuller K: The effect of ­calcium-regulating hormones and prostaglandins on bone resorption by ­osteoclasts disaggregated from neonatal rabbit bones. Endocrinology,1985.116: 234-9, 116234  1985  [PubMed]
     
    Gravett A; Sterner S; Clinton JE; and Ruiz E: A trial of povidone-iodine in the prevention of infection in sutured lacerations. Ann Emerg Med,1987.16: 167-71, 16167  1987  [PubMed]
     
    McDonald WS, and Nichter LS: Debridement of bacterial and particulate-contaminate­d wounds. Ann Plast Surg,1994.33: 142-7, 33142  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Platt J, and Bucknall RA: An experimental evaluation of antiseptic wound irrigation. J Hosp Infect,1984.5: 181-8, 5181  1984  [PubMed]
     
    Conroy BP; Anglen JO; Simpson WA; Christensen G; Phaup G; Yeager R; and Gainor BJ. : Comparison of castile soap, benzalkonium chloride, and bacitracin as irrigation solutions for complex contaminated orthopaedic wounds. J Orthop Trauma,1999.13: 332-7, 13332  1999  [PubMed]
     
    Edlich RF; Custer J; Madden J; Dajani AS; Rogers W; and Wangensteen OH: Studies in management of the contaminated wound. 3. Assessment of the effectiveness of irrigation with antiseptic agents. Am J Surg,1969.118: 21-30, 11821  1969  [PubMed]
     
    Scherr DD, and Dodd TA: In vitro bacteriological evaluation of the effectiveness of antimicrobial irrigating solutions. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1976.58: 119-22, 58119  1976  [PubMed]
     
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Guidelines
    Camphor poisoning: an evidence-based consensus guideline for out-of-hospital management. -American Association of Poison Control Centers | 2/23/2007
    Results provided by:
    PubMed
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    Maine - Central Maine Medical Center