Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a common and serious complication in trauma surgery. Accurately estimating the impact of this complication has been hampered by the lack of a clear definition. The absence of a working definition of FRI renders existing studies difficult to evaluate or compare. In order to address this issue, an expert group comprised of a number of scientific and medical organizations has been convened, with the support of the AO Foundation, in order to develop a consensus definition. The process that led to this proposed definition started with a systematic literature review, which revealed that the majority of randomized controlled trials in fracture care do not use a standardized definition of FRI. In response to this conclusion, an international survey on the need for and key components of a definition of FRI was distributed amongst all registered AOTrauma users. Approximately 90% of the more than 2000 surgeons who responded suggested that a definition of FRI is required. As a final step, a consensus meeting was held with an expert panel. The outcome of this process led to a consensus definition of FRI. Two levels of certainty around diagnostic features were defined. Criteria could be confirmatory (infection definitely present) or suggestive. Four confirmatory criteria were defined: Fistula, sinus or wound breakdown; Purulent drainage from the wound or presence of pus during surgery; Phenotypically indistinguishable pathogens identified by culture from at least two separate deep tissue/implant specimens; Presence of microorganisms in deep tissue taken during an operative intervention, as confirmed by histopathological examination. Furthermore, a list of suggestive criteria was defined. These require further investigations in order to look for confirmatory criteria. In the current paper, an overview is provided of the proposed definition and a rationale for each component and decision. The intention of establishing this definition of FRI was to offer clinicians the opportunity to standardize clinical reports and improve the quality of published literature. It is important to note that the proposed definition was not designed to guide treatment of FRI and should be validated by prospective data collection in the future.

A prospective study was performed to establish criteria for the microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection at elective revision arthroplasty. Patients were treated in a multidisciplinary unit dedicated to the management and study of musculoskeletal infection. Standard multiple samples of periprosthetic tissue were obtained at surgery, Gram stained, and cultured by direct and enrichment methods. With reference to histology as the criterion standard, sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated by using different cutoffs for the diagnosis of infection. We performed revisions on 334 patients over a 17-month period, of whom 297 were evaluable. The remaining 37 were excluded because histology results were unavailable or could not be interpreted due to underlying inflammatory joint disease. There were 41 infections, with only 65% of all samples sent from infected patients being culture positive, suggesting low numbers of bacteria in the samples taken. The isolation of an indistinguishable microorganism from three or more independent specimens was highly predictive of infection (sensitivity, 65%; specificity, 99.6%; LR, 168.6), while Gram staining was less useful (sensitivity, 12%; specificity, 98%; LR, 10). A simple mathematical model was developed to predict the performance of the diagnostic test. We recommend that five or six specimens be sent, that the cutoff for a definite diagnosis of infection be three or more operative specimens that yield an indistinguishable organism, and that because of its low level of sensitivity, Gram staining should be abandoned as a diagnostic tool at elective revision arthroplasty.

No abstract