Definition of infection after fracture fixation: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate current practice

INTRODUCTION

One of the most challenging musculoskeletal complications in modern trauma surgery is infection after fracture fixation (IAFF). Although infections are clinically obvious in many cases, a clear definition of the term IAFF is crucial, not only for the evaluation of published research data but also for the establishment of uniform treatment concepts. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the definitions used in the scientific literature to describe infectious complications after internal fixation of fractures. The hypothesis of this study was that the majority of fracture-related literature do not define IAFF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Medline (OvidSP), PubMed publisher and Web-of-Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fracture fixation. Data were collected on the definition of infectious complications after fracture fixation used in each study. Study selection was accomplished through two phases. During the first phase, titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and the full texts of relevant articles were obtained. During the second phase, full-text articles were reviewed. All definitions were literally extracted and collected in a database. Then, a classification was designed to rate the quality of the description of IAFF.

RESULTS

A total of 100 RCT's were identified in the search. Of 100 studies, only two (2%) cited a validated definition to describe IAFF. In 28 (28%) RCTs, the authors used a self-designed definition. In the other 70 RCTs, (70%) there was no description of a definition in the Methods section, although all of the articles described infections as an outcome parameter in the Results section.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that IAFF is not defined in a large majority of the fracture-related literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted with the objective to explore this important issue. The lack of a consensus definition remains a problem in current orthopedic trauma research and treatment and this void should be addressed in the near future.

Fracture-related infection: A consensus on definition from an international expert group

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.

International survey among orthopaedic trauma surgeons: Lack of a definition of fracture-related infection

INTRODUCTION

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is one of the most challenging musculoskeletal complications in orthopaedic-trauma surgery. Although the orthopaedic community has developed and adopted a consensus definition of prosthetic joint infections (PJI), it still remains unclear how the trauma surgery community defines FRI in daily clinical practice or in performing clinical research studies. The central aim of this study was to survey the opinions of a global network of trauma surgeons on the definitions and criteria they routinely use, and their opinion on the need for a unified definition of FRI. The secondary aims were to survey their opinion on the utility of currently used definitions that may be at least partially applicable for FRI, and finally their opinion on the important clinical parameters that should be considered as diagnostic criteria for FRI.

METHODS

An 11-item questionnaire was developed to cover the above-mentioned aims. The questionnaire was administered by SurveyMonkey and was sent via blast email to all registered users of AO Trauma (Davos, Switzerland).

RESULTS

Out of the 26'563 recipients who opened the email, 2'327 (8.8%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly 90% of respondents agreed that a consensus-derived definition for FRI is required and 66% of the surgeons also agreed that PJI and FRI are not equal with respect to diagnosis, treatment and outcome. Furthermore, "positive cultures from microbiology testing", "elevation of CRP", "purulent drainage" and "local clinical signs of infection" were voted the most important diagnostic parameters for FRI.

CONCLUSION

This international survey infers the need for a consensus definition of FRI and provides insight into the clinical parameters seen by an international community of trauma surgeons as being critical for defining FRI.

Interpretation of Post-operative Distal Humerus Radiographs After Internal Fixation: Prediction of Later Loss of Fixation

PURPOSE

Stable fixation of distal humerus fracture fragments is necessary for adequate healing and maintenance of reduction. The purpose of this study was to measure the reliability and accuracy of interpretation of postoperative radiographs to predict which implants will loosen or break after operative treatment of bicolumnar distal humerus fractures. We also addressed agreement among surgeons regarding which fracture fixation will loosen or break and the influence of years in independent practice, location of practice, and so forth.

METHODS

A total of 232 orthopedic residents and surgeons from around the world evaluated 24 anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of distal humerus fractures on a Web-based platform to predict which implants would loosen or break. Agreement among observers was measured using the multi-rater kappa measure.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of prediction of failure of fixation of distal humerus fracture on radiographs was 63%, specificity was 53%, positive predictive value was 36%, the negative predictive value was 78%, and accuracy was 56%. There was fair interobserver agreement (κ = 0.27) regarding predictions of failure of fixation of distal humerus fracture on radiographs. Interobserver variability did not change when assessed for the various subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

When experienced and skilled surgeons perform fixation of type C distal humerus fracture, the immediate postoperative radiograph is not predictive of fixation failure. Reoperation based on the probability of failure might not be advisable.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic III.

Leiomyosarcoma as a second metachronous malignant neoplasm following colon adenocarcinoma. A case report and review of the literature

Long-term cancer survivors are at increased risk for the development of second primary malignancies. This is usually associated with common genetic and etiologic factors and the treatment modality used for the primary cancer. In this paper we describe the case of a patient who developed a leiomyosarcoma in his left arm 5 years after he had a colon adenocarcinoma resected. Both primary tumours were treated successfully with surgical resection alone. The literature regarding second primary neoplasms, specifically focused on sarcomas, is briefly reviewed.

Potential aetiological factors concerning the development of osteonecrosis of the femoral head

BACKGROUND

The aetiology and pathogenesis of non-traumatic osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head have not been fully elucidated. The present study was conducted to evaluate the possible correlation of relevant haematological and biochemical factors with the development of ON.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our investigation consisted of measurement of haematological indices and assessment of the biochemical and lipid profile of a study population of 68 patients with non-traumatic ON of the femoral head and 36 healthy controls. The disease was considered idiopathic in 17 and secondary in 51 patients.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the parameters measured among the idiopathic ON, secondary ON and control groups, except for globulins alpha1, alpha2 and beta, which were significantly increased in both patient groups, and apolipoprotein B (Apo B), which was increased in patients with idiopathic disease compared with the control group. Both patient groups presented increased von Willebrand factor (VWF) and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels and decreased protein C and S concentrations, but without statistical significance. However, both patient groups exhibited a greater proportion of abnormal values of any of these parameters, in 58.9% of the idiopathic and in 62.7% of the secondary ON patients, compared with 8.3% of the controls.

CONCLUSION

Our study underlines the potential association of abnormal values of protein C, protein S, VWF and Lp(a) with ON. To our knowledge this is the first reported association of VWF with the disease. The majority of both idiopathic and secondary ON patients in our series exhibits a thrombotic potential that adds further support to the postulation that intravascular coagulation is a major pathogenetic mechanism leading to the disease.