Objective To study the epidemiological correlation and drug resistance of external factors of infection caused by open injury of limbs to pathogens. Methods This experiment is a retrospective study. We took the geographical location and climate of Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China as the background, analyzed 2017 strains of pathogens from 1589 patients with limb trauma infection in a University Affiliated Hospital from 2012 to 2017. Patients were divided into three groups according to the type of incision: I, In‐hospital infection of clean limb incision, II, In‐hospital infection with open injury, III, Community infection with open injury of the limb. Groups II and Groups III were divided into six subgroups according to the causes of trauma, including: accidents from non‐motor vehicles, machinery, cutting/piercing, pedestrian injuries, struck by/against, pedal cycles, and other injuries. We found eight common pathogens of orthopedic infection, which were mainly divided into Gram‐positive bacteria (G+, mainly including Staphylococcus ) and Gram‐negative bacteria (G‐, mainly Enterobacteriaceae ). The relationship between main pathogens and damage mechanism, apparent temperature and relative humidity was discussed in this study. SPSS v22.0 was used for statistical analysis of the data. Friedman's two‐way ANOVA was used to analyze the difference between the injury mechanism and incidence of pathogenic bacteria. Linear regression was used to determine the trend between the incidence of major pathogens and seasonal temperature and humidity. The level of significance was set as P < 0.05. Results There was no significant difference in the distribution of pathogens between Groups II and Groups III ( P >0.05). The drug resistance of Groups III was significantly higher than that of Groups II and Groups I. G+ bacteria were resistant to cephalosporin, ceftriaxone and other cephalosporins and erythromycin and other macrolides. They were sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid. G‐ were resistant to the first‐ and the second‐generation cephalosporins, including cefotetan and cefazolin, and ampicillin and other penicillins, while they were sensitive to third‐generation cephalosporins, such as ceftazidime, as well as to levofloxacin and other quinolones, meropenem, and other beta‐lactamases. The correlation between the injury mechanism and infection of pathogenic bacteria was not significant. The monthly average apparent temperature and relative humidity were correlated with the infection rate of pathogenic bacteria. Conclusion In open injury of extremities, apparent temperature and relative humidity is an important risk factor for infection by pathogenic bacteria and the drug resistance of pathogenic bacteria in out‐of‐hospital infection was lower than that of hospital infection.

Objective This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a new hemostatic gelatin matrix for use in spinal surgery. Methods From September to December 2020, 54 patients from our hospital were recruited and randomly allocated to a test group or a control group using computer-generated randomization codes. In the test group, the new hemostatic gelatin matrix was used; in the control group, the Surgiflo™ Hemostatic Matrix was used. All operations for both groups were performed by a senior physician, and the following measures were recorded for comparison: (i) rates of successful hemostasis at 5 min; (ii) time to hemostasis; (iii) blood pressure (BP); (iv) red blood (RBC) cell count; and (v) hemoglobin (Hb) levels in the preoperative period, 1st to 2nd postoperative days, and 42nd postoperative day. Adverse events following surgery were also compared. Results All patients were followed up for at least 6 weeks. In the test group, 24 and 2 cases achieved and did not achieve hemostasis within 5 min, respectively. In the control group, 23 and 2 cases achieved and did not achieve hemostasis within 5 min, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.967). The time to hemostasis, BP, RBC, and Hb in the preoperative period, on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days, and 42nd postoperative day also showed no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The new hemostatic gelatin matrix has the same efficacy and safety as that of Surgiflo™ Hemostatic Matrix.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a new hemostatic gelatin matrix for use in spinal surgery.Methods: From September to December 2020, 54 patients from our hospital were recruited and randomly allocated to a test group or a control group using computer-generated randomization codes. In the test group, the new hemostatic gelatin matrix was used; in the control group, the Surgiflo™ Hemostatic Matrix was used. All operations for both groups were performed by a senior physician, and the following measures were recorded for comparison: (i) rates of successful hemostasis at 5 min; (ii) time to hemostasis; (iii) blood pressure (BP); (iv) red blood (RBC) cell count; and (v) hemoglobin (Hb) levels in the preoperative period, 1st to 2nd postoperative days, and 42nd postoperative day. Adverse events following surgery were also compared. Results: All patients were followed up for at least 6 weeks. In the test group, 24 and 2 cases achieved and did not achieve hemostasis within 5 min, respectively. In the control group, 23 and 2 cases achieved and did not achieve hemostasis within 5 min, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.967). The time to hemostasis, BP, RBC, and Hb in the preoperative period, on the 1st and 2nd postoperative days, and 42nd postoperative day also showed no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05).Conclusion: The new hemostatic gelatin matrix has the same efficacy and safety as that of Surgiflo™ Hemostatic Matrix.