Search

Introduction: Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a severe musculoskeletal complication in orthopedic trauma surgery, causing challenges in bony and soft tissue management. Currently, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is often used as temporary coverage for traumatic and surgical wounds, also in cases of FRI. However, controversy exists about the impact of NPWT on the outcome in FRI, specifically on infection recurrence. Therefore, this systematic review qualitatively assesses the literature on the role of NPWT in the management of FRI., Methods: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science database was performed. Studies that reported on infection recurrence related to FRI management combined with NPWT were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was done using the PRISMA statement and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale., Results: After screening and quality assessment of 775 unique identified records, eight articles could be included for qualitative synthesis. All eight studies reported on infection recurrence, which ranged from 2.8% to 34.9%. Six studies described wound healing time, varying from two to seven weeks. Four studies took repeated microbial swabs during subsequent vacuum dressing changes. One study reported newly detected pathogens in 23% of the included patients, and three studies did not find new pathogens., Conclusion: This review provides an assessment of current literature on the role of NPWT in the management of soft tissue defects in patients with FRI. Due to the lack of uniformity in included studies, conclusions should be drawn with caution. Currently, there is no clear scientific evidence to support the use of NPWT as definitive treatment in FRI. At this stage, we can only recommend early soft tissue coverage (within days) with a local or free flap. NPWT may be safe for a few days as temporarily soft tissue coverage until definitive soft tissue management could be performed. However, comparative studies between NPWT and early wound closure in FRI patients are needed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Susan Haidari et al.)

Fracture-related infection (FRI) remains a challenging complication that creates a heavy burden for orthopaedic trauma patients, their families and treating physicians, as well as for healthcare systems. Standardization of the diagnosis of FRI has been poor, which made the undertaking and comparison of studies difficult. Recently, a consensus definition based on diagnostic criteria for FRI was published. As a well-established diagnosis is the first step in the treatment process of FRI, such a definition should not only improve the quality of published reports but also daily clinical practice. The FRI consensus group recently developed guidelines to standardize treatment pathways and outcome measures. At the center of these recommendations was the implementation of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. If such a team is not available, it is recommended to refer complex cases to specialized centers where a MDT is available and physicians are experienced with the treatment of FRI. This should lead to appropriate use of antimicrobials and standardization of surgical strategies. Furthermore, an MDT could play an important role in host optimization. Overall two main surgical concepts are considered, based on the fact that fracture fixation devices primarily target fracture consolidation and can be removed after healing, in contrast to periprosthetic joint infection were the implant is permanent. The first concept consists of implant retention and the second consists of implant removal (healed fracture) or implant exchange (unhealed fracture). In both cases, deep tissue sampling for microbiological examination is mandatory. Key aspects of the surgical management of FRI are a thorough debridement, irrigation with normal saline, fracture stability, dead space management and adequate soft tissue coverage. The use of local antimicrobials needs to be strongly considered. In case of FRI, empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy should be started after tissue sampling. Thereafter, this needs to be adapted according to culture results as soon as possible. Finally, a minimum follow-up of 12 months after cessation of therapy is recommended. Standardized patient outcome measures purely focusing on FRI are currently not available but the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) seems to be the preferred tool to assess the patients' short and long-term outcome. This review summarizes the current general principles which should be considered during the whole treatment process of patients with FRI based on recommendations from the FRI Consensus Group.Level of evidence: Level V.

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a severe complication after bone injury and can pose a serious diagnostic challenge. Overall, there is a limited amount of scientific evidence regarding diagnostic criteria for FRI. For this reason, the AO Foundation and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society proposed a consensus definition for FRI to standardize the diagnostic criteria and improve the quality of patient care and applicability of future studies regarding this condition. The aim of this article was to summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for the diagnosis of FRI. For this purpose, the FRI consensus definition will be discussed together with a proposal for an update based on the available evidence relating to the diagnostic value of clinical parameters, serum inflammatory markers, imaging modalities, tissue and sonication fluid sampling, molecular biology techniques, and histopathological examination. Second, recommendations on microbiology specimen sampling and laboratory operating procedures relevant to FRI will be provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Diagnostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Introduction: Fracture-related infection (FRI) is an important complication following surgical fracture management. Key to successful treatment is an accurate diagnosis. To this end, microbiological identification remains the gold standard. Although a structured approach towards sampling specimens for microbiology seems logical, there is no consensus on a culture protocol for FRI. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a structured microbiology sampling protocol for fracture-related infections compared to ad-hoc culture sampling., Methods: We conducted a pre-/post-implementation cohort study that compared the effects of implementation of a structured FRI sampling protocol. The protocol included strict criteria for sampling and interpretation of tissue cultures for microbiology. All intraoperative samples from suspected or confirmed FRI were compared for culture results. Adherence to the protocol was described for the post-implementation cohort., Results: In total 101 patients were included, 49 pre-implementation and 52 post-implementation. From these patients 175 intraoperative culture sets were obtained, 96 and 79 pre- and post-implementation respectively. Cultures from the pre-implementation cohort showed significantly more antibiotic use during culture sampling (P =  0.002). The post-implementation cohort showed a tendency more positive culture sets (69% vs. 63%), with a significant difference in open wounds (86% vs. 67%, P =  0.034). In all post-implementation culture sets causative pathogens were cultured more than once per set, in contrast to pre-implementation. Despite stricter tissue sampling and culture interpretation criteria, the number of polymicrobial infections was similar in both cohorts, approximately 29% of all culture sets and 44% of all positive culture sets. Significantly more polymicrobial cultures were found in early infections in the post-implementation cohort (P =  0.048). This indicates a better yield in the new protocol., Conclusion: A standardised protocol for intraoperative sampling for bacterial identification in FRI is superior than an ad-hoc approach. It has a positive effect on both surgeon and microbiologist by increasing awareness about the problem at hand. This resulted in more microbiologically confirmed infections and more certainty when identifying causative pathogens., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)