First-line treatment of deep sternal infection by a plastic surgical approach: Superior results compared with conventional cardiac surgical orthodoxy

A majority of cardiac surgeons manage deep sternal infection with sternal wound debridement, rewiring, and closed drainage, with or without antibiotic saline tube irrigation (the traditional approach). The authors' experience with the traditional approach was unsatisfactory; therefore, they undertook a radical change in management: all immediate plastic surgical approach. Hence, deep sternal infection was managed by immediate debridement followed by a bilateral pectoralis major myocutaneous advancement flap with greater omental transposition (PMOFR). This is the first such study reporting the effect of this strategy oil the rate of eradication of deep sternal infection, intensive care unit slay, total hospital length of stay, major complications, mortality, intermediate survival, and patient satisfaction, as compared with the traditional approach used by cardiac surgeons at the authors' institution. All patients who developed a deep sternal infection from 1993 through 1998 at a tertiary teaching hospital were included. In the PMOFR group (nine patients). after a diagnosis of clinical sternal wound infection, debridement was performed immediately. either if sternal dehiscence occurred or in the absence of clinical dehiscence, if the patient or the sternotomy wound did not clinically improve with medical therapy within 48 hours from suspected diagnosis. Open irrigation and packing for 2 to 4 days was followed by treatment with a PMOFR. In the group treated using the traditional approach (12 patients), no predetermined plan was present. Thus, at the cardiac surgeon's discretion, wound debridement was undertaken, followed by closed drainage (three patients), closed tube irrigation (six patients), and open granulation with delayed plastic surgery (three patients). The incidence of major complications (PMOFR, 22 percent; traditional approach, 92 percent: p = 0.001) intensive care unit readmission (PMOFR, 0 percent traditional approach, 58 percent; p = 0.005), total hospital length of stay (PMOFR, 32 days; traditional approach, 79 days: p = 0.001), reoperation rates (PMOFR, 0 percent; traditional approach, 100 percent; p = 0.001) and in-hospital 30-day mortality rate (PMOFR, 0 percent; traditional approach. 33 percent p = 0.05) were superior in the PMOFR group. At a clean follow-up of 2 years, freedom from recurrence of the infection (PMOFR, 100 pet,cent; traditional approach, 11.5 percent; p = 0.005) and overall survival rate (PMOFR, 100 percents traditional approach, 50 percent; p = 0.005) were also superior with PMOFR. A majority of patients in the PMOFR group (90 percent) had no functional or cosmetic complaints secondary, to the procedure. A predetermined plan of immediate debridement followed by treatment with PMOFR rapidly, reliably, and effectively, eradicated deep sternal infection. This translated to reduced length of stay and need for additional surgery, improved survival, and excellent intermediate freedom from deep sternal infection, with minimal patient dissatisfaction. The traditional approach to managing deep sternal infection was thus abandoned.