[Fracture-related infections after intramedullary nailing : Diagnostics and treatment]

Long-Term Outcomes Following Single-Stage Reamed Intramedullary Exchange Nailing in Apparently Aseptic Femoral Shaft Nonunion with Unsuspected Proof of Bacteria

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate detection rates and risk factors for unsuspected proof of bacteria, as well as clinical and radiologic outcomes following femoral shaft nonunion without clinical signs of infection treated by a single-stage surgical revision procedure including reamed intramedullary exchange nailing. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in a European level I trauma center between January 2015 and December 2022. Fifty-eight patients were included who underwent reamed intramedullary exchange nailing as a single-step procedure for surgical revision of posttraumatic diaphyseal femoral nonunion without any indications of infection in medical history and without clinical signs of local infection. Clinical details of the patients were analyzed and functional and radiologic long-term outcomes were determined. Results: In all patients, with and without proof of bacteria osseous, healing could be observed. The physical component summary of the SF-12 demonstrated significantly better results at least one year after the final surgical revision in case of a negative bacterial culture during exchange nailing. Conclusions: Clinical long-term outcomes demonstrated a trend towards better results following femoral shaft nonunion revision if there was no evidence for the presence of low-grade infected nonunion. In this case, a single-stage surgical procedure may be recommended.

[Diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of infected tibial nonunion]

BACKGROUND

The failure of bone fracture healing is one of the major complications of fracture treatment, especially of the tibia due to its limited soft tissue coverage and high rate of open injuries. Although implant development is constantly progressing and modern surgical techniques are continuously improving, infected tibial nonunion plays a decisive role in terms of its variable clinical presentation.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides guidelines for the successful surgical treatment of infected tibial nonunion.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Strategies are presented to identify infection as a cause of failure of fracture healing and to achieve infection and bone healing.

RESULTS

A significant amount of tibial nonunions primarily thought to be aseptic ultimately turn out to be infected nonunions.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of infected tibial nonunion requires extensive clinical, radiological and laboratory diagnostics as well as a profound biomechanical and biological understanding of the bone situation. This is the only way to achieve rapid osseous healing with as few revision interventions as possible.

Fracture-Related Infection-Epidemiology, Etiology, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a challenge to physicians and other workers in health care. In 2018, there were 7253 listed cases of FRI in Germany, corresponding to an incidence of 10.7 cases per 100 000 persons per year.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved from a search in PubMed with the search terms "fracture," "infection," "guideline," and "consensus." Aside from the primary literature, international guidelines and consensus recommendations were evaluated as well.

RESULTS

FRI arise mainly from bacterial contamination of the fracture site. Staphylococcus aureus is the most commonly detected pathogen. The treatment is based on surgery and antibiotics and should be agreed upon by an interdisciplinary team; it is often difficult because of biofilm formation. Treatment options include implant-preserving procedures and single-stage, two-stage, or multi-stage implant replacement. Treatment failure occurs in 10.3% to 21.4% of cases. The available evidence on the efficacy of various treatment approaches is derived mainly from retrospective cohort studies (level III evidence). Therefore, periprosthetic joint infections and FRI are often discussed together.

CONCLUSION

FRI presents an increasing challenge. Preventive measures should be optimized, and the treatment should always be decided upon by an interdisciplinary team. Only low-level evidence is available to date to guide diagnostic and treatment decisions. High-quality studies are therefore needed to help us meet this challenge more effectively.

[Infected nonunion: diagnostic and therapeutic work-up]

BACKGROUND

Septic nonunion is one of the major complications in fracture healing. The challenge is to identify the infection as the cause of nonunion first and then to achieve healing of the infection and the bone.

OBJECTIVE

Because of the more heterogeneous appearance of an infected nonunion, the prevalence of germ detection in surgical nonunion revision is often underestimated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a retrospective study between 2010 and 2017, 86 patients with radiologically confirmed femoral shaft nonunion without clinical evidence and unremarkable medical history of a florid infection as the cause of nonunion, who had undergone primary single-stage surgical nonunion revision were analyzed. At least four intraoperatively obtained samples were evaluated for microbiological diagnosis. A distinction was made between tissue samples with subsequent 48‑h short-term incubation and tissue samples with 14-day long-term cultivation. The finding "germ detection" was made if at least two of the samples demonstrated bacterial growth.

RESULTS

In 18 of 86 patients with a nonunion preoperatively judged to be aseptic, positive bacterial evidence was obtained after short-term incubation. After long-term cultivation, positive bacterial detection was possible in 38 of 86 patients with a femoral shaft nonunion initially classified as aseptic. Regarding potential risk factors, the two groups demonstrated no relevant differences. In 29 patients, 1 pathogen was isolated from the obtained samples, whereas in the remaining 9 patients, a mixed culture with an average of 2.9 ± 0.5 different bacteria was detected. Identification revealed mainly low-virulence bacteria, most commonly Staphylococcus epidermidis.

CONCLUSION

If the preoperative diagnostics including clinical, laboratory and radiological examination as well as a careful anamnesis reveal indications of a possible infectious event, the surgical nonunion revision should be performed in two stages with specimen collection before definitive nonunion revision. For microbiological diagnosis, several representative tissue samples should independently be obtained from the nonunion site and incubated for 14 days. Only in the absence of evidence of septic nonunion is a single-stage procedure suggested.

What Is the Most Effective Empirical Antibiotic Treatment for Early, Delayed, and Late Fracture-Related Infections?

Antibiotic treatment strategies for fracture-related infections (FRI) are often extrapolated from periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), although, in contrast to PJI, detailed analysis of pathogens and their antibiotic resistance is missing. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate antibiotic susceptibility profiles to identify effective empiric antibiotic treatment for early-, delayed-, and late-onset FRI. Patients treated for FRI from 2013 to 2020 were grouped into early (<2 weeks), delayed (3−10 weeks), and late (>10 weeks) onset of infection. Antibiotic susceptibility profiles were examined with respect to broadly used antibiotics and antibiotic combinations. In total, 117 patients (early n = 19, delayed n = 60, late n = 38) were enrolled. In early-onset FRI, 100.0% efficacy would be achieved by meropenem + vancomycin, gentamicin + vancomycin, co-amoxiclav + glycopeptide, ciprofloxacin + glycopeptide and piperacillin/tazobactam + glycopeptide. For patients with delayed FRI, the highest susceptibility was revealed for meropenem + vancomycin, gentamicin + vancomycin and ciprofloxacin + glycopeptide (96.7%). Meropenem + vancomycin was the most effective empiric antimicrobial in patients with late-onset of infection with 92.1% coverage. No subgroup differences in antibiotic sensitivity profiles were observed except for the combination ciprofloxacin + glycopeptide, which was significantly superior in early FRI (F = 3.304, p = 0.04). Across all subgroups meropenem + vancomycin was the most effective empiric treatment in 95.7% of patients with confirmed susceptibility. Meropenem + vancomycin, gentamicin + vancomycin, co-amoxiclav + glycopeptide are the best therapeutic options for FRI, regardless of the onset of infection. To avoid multidrug resistance, established antibiotic combinations such as co-amoxiclav with a glycopeptide seem to be reasonable as a systemic antibiotic therapy, while vancomycin + gentamicin could be implemented in local antibiotic therapy to reduce adverse events during treatment.