Search

Diagnosis of bone and joint infections can be difficult. In recent years there has been great progress in defining how we diagnose fracture-related infection (FRI) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Definitions have been proposed based on the best evidence from the literature, including well-established tests performed before and during surgery. These allow surgeons to make better decisions for treatment and to counsel patients. This paper presents the elements of the International Consensus Definition of FRI and the European Bone & Joint Infection Society Definition of Prosthetic Joint Infection (PJI), together with the current knowledge on how these definitions can help in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, accurate diagnosis and successful treatment of infection after fracture fixation (IAFF) still impose great challenges. According to the onset of infection symptoms after implantation, IAFF is classified as early infection (<2 weeks), delayed infection (2∼10 weeks) and late infection (>10 weeks). Confirmation of IAFF should be supported by histopathological tests of intraoperative specimens which confirm infection, cultures from at least two suspected infection sites which reveal the same pathogen, a definite sinus or fistula which connects directly the bone or the implant, and purulent drainage from the wound or presence of pus during surgery. Diagnosis of IAFF is built on comprehensive assessment of medical history, clinical signs and symptoms of the patient, and imaging and laboratory tests. The gold standard of diagnosis is histopathological tests. Treatment of IAFF consists of radical debridement, adequate irrigation, implant handling, systematic and local antibiotics, reconstruction of osseous and/or soft tissue defects, and functional rehabilitation of an affected limb. Early accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of IAFF play a key role in increasing the cure rate, reducing infection recurrence and disability risk, restoring limb function and improving quality of life of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone and joint infections are common worldwide and cause considerable morbidity for the patient. Despite recent advances, they are difficult and expensive to treat. Regardless of the infection type (septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, fracture-related infections, or periprosthetic joint infection), patients may suffer from chronic ill health, multiple revision surgeries and prolonged hospital stay. An accurate diagnosis is the first step for successful treatment and infection control. However, due to the lack of a single test providing 100% accuracy, interdisciplinary teamwork is needed to diagnose bone and joint infections more precisely. Nevertheless, the diagnosis remains very challenging, especially in infections caused by low virulence organisms. This review will describe the diagnostic methods for septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, fracture-related infections and periprosthetic joint infections in current use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) is frequently used to diagnose fracture-related infections (FRIs), but its diagnostic performance in this field is still unknown. The aims of this study were: (1) to assess the diagnostic performance of qualitative assessment of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans in diagnosing FRI, (2) to establish the diagnostic performance of standardized uptake values (SUVs) extracted from 18F-FDG PET/CT scans and to determine their associated optimal cut-off values, and (3) to identify variables that predict a false-positive (FP) or false-negative (FN) 18F-FDG PET/CT result. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients with suspected FRI undergoing 18F-FDG PET/CT between 2011 and 2017 in two level-1 trauma centres. Two nuclear medicine physicians independently reassessed all 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. The reference standard consisted of the result of at least two deep, representative microbiological cultures or the presence/absence of clinical confirmatory signs of FRI (AO/EBJIS consensus definition) during a follow-up of at least 6 months. Diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) was calculated. Additionally, SUVs were measured on 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. Volumes of interest were drawn around the suspected and corresponding contralateral areas to obtain absolute values and ratios between suspected and contralateral areas. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was also performed to identify the most important predictor(s) of FP or FN 18F-FDG PET/CT results. Results: The study included 156 18F-FDG PET/CT scans in 135 patients. Qualitative assessment of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans showed a sensitivity of 0.89, specificity of 0.80, PPV of 0.74, NPV of 0.91 and diagnostic accuracy of 0.83. SUVs on their own resulted in lower diagnostic performance, but combining them with qualitative assessments yielded an AUC of 0.89 compared to an AUC of 0.84 when considering only the qualitative assessment results (p = 0.007). 18F-FDG PET/CT performed <1 month after surgery was found to be the independent variable with the highest predictive value for a false test result, with an absolute risk of 46% (95% CI 27–66%), compared with 7% (95% CI 4–12%) in patients with 18F-FDG PET/CT performed 1–6 months after surgery. Conclusion: Qualitative assessment of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans had a diagnostic accuracy of 0.83 and an excellent NPV of 0.91 in diagnosing FRI. Adding SUV measurements to qualitative assessment provided additional accuracy in comparison to qualitative assessment alone. An interval between surgery and 18F-FDG PET/CT of <1 month was associated with a sharp increase in false test results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]