The global burden of fracture-related infection (FRI) is likely to be found in countries with limited healthcare resources and strategies are needed to ensure the best available practice is context appropriate. This study has two main aims: (i) to assess the applicability of recently published expert guidance from the FRI consensus groups on the diagnosis and management of FRI to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); (ii) to summarise the available evidence on FRI, with consideration for strategies applicable to low resource settings. Data related to the International Consensus Meeting Orthopaedic Trauma Work Group and the International Fracture Related Infection Consensus Group FRI guidelines were collected including panel membership, country of origin, language of publication, open access status and impact factor of the journal of publication. The recommendations and guidelines were then summarised with specific consideration for relevance and applicability to LMICs. Barriers to implementation were explored within a group of LMIC residents and experienced workers. The authorship, evidence base and reach of the FRI consensus guidelines lack representation from low resource settings. The majority of authors (78.5–100%) are based in high-income countries and there are no low-income country collaborators listed in any of the papers. All papers are in English. The FRI consensus guidelines give a clear set of principles for the optimum management of FRI. Many of these – including the approach to diagnosis, multidisciplinary team working and some elements of surgical management – are achievable in low resource settings. Current evidence suggests that it is important that a core set of principles is prioritised but robust evidence for this is lacking. There are major organisational and infrastructure obstacles in LMICs that will make any standardisation of FRI diagnosis or management challenging. The detail of how FRI consensus principles should be applied in low resource settings requires further work. The important work presented in the current FRI consensus guidelines is relevant to low resource settings. However, leadership, collaboration, creativity and innovation will be needed to implement these strategies for communities who need it the most.

Fracture Related Infection (FRI) represents one of the biggest challenges for Trauma and Orthopaedic surgery. A better understanding of the microbiological profile should assist with decision-making and optimising outcomes. Our primary aim was to report on the microbiological profile of FRI cases treated over a six-year period at one of Europe’s busiest trauma centres. Secondarily, we sought to correlate our findings with existing anti-microbiological protocols and report on diagnostic techniques employed in our practice. All adult cases of FRI treated in our institution between 2016 and 2021 were identified, retrospectively. We recorded patient demographics, diagnostic strategies, causative organisms and antibiotic susceptibilities. There were 330 infection episodes in 294 patients. A total of 463 potentially pathogenic organisms (78 different species) were identified from cultures, of which 57.2% were gram-positive and 39.7% gram-negative. Polymicrobial cultures were found in 33.6% of cases and no causative organism was found in 17.5%. The most prevalent organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (24.4%), coagulase-negative Staphylococci (14%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.2%), Enterobacter species (7.8%) and Escherichia coli (6.9%). Resistant gram-positive organisms (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant Enterococci) were implicated in 3.3% of infection episodes and resistant gram-negatives (extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, ampC or carbapenemase-producing bacteria) in 13.6%. The organisms cultured in 96.3% of infection episodes would have been covered by our empirical systemic antibiotic choice of teicoplanin and meropenem. To our knowledge, this is the largest reported single-centre cohort of FRIs from a major trauma centre. Our results demonstrate patterns in microbiological profiles that should serve to inform the decision-making process regarding antibiotic choices for both prophylaxis and treatment.

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a common and devastating complication of orthopedic trauma in all settings. Data on the microbiological profile and susceptibility of FRI to antibiotics in low-income countries are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the microbial patterns and antimicrobial susceptibility of FRI in a sub-Saharan African setting in order to provide guidance for the formulation of evidence-based empirical antimicrobial regimens. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated for FRI with deep tissue sampling for microbiological culture from January 2016 to August 2023 in four tertiary-level hospitals in Yaoundé, Cameroon. There were 246 infection episodes in 217 patients. Cultures were positive in 209 (84.9%) cases and polymicrobial in 109 (44.3%) cases. A total of 363 microorganisms from 71 different species were identified, of which 239 (65.8%) were Gram-negative. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 69; 19%), Enterobacter cloacae (n = 43; 11.8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 35; 9.6%), Escherichia coli (n = 35; 9.6%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 27; 7.4%). Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) were isolated in only 21 (5.9%) cases. Gram-negative bacteria accounted for the majority of the infections in early (70.9%) and delayed (73.2%) FRI, but Gram-positive bacteria were prevalent in late FRI (51.7%) (p < 0.001). Polymicrobial infections were more frequent in the early (55.9%) and delayed (41.9%) groups than in the late group (27.6%) (p < 0.001). Apart from Staphylococcus aureus, there was no significant difference in the proportions of causative pathogens between early, delayed, and late FRI. This study found striking resistance rates of bacteria to commonly used antibiotics. MRSA accounted for 63% of cases. The most effective antibiotics for all Gram-positive bacteria were linezolid (96.4%), vancomycin (92.5%), clindamycin (85.3%), and fucidic acid (89.4%). For Gram-negative bacteria, only three antibiotics displayed a sensitivity >50%: amikacin (80.4%), imipenem (74.4%), and piperacillin + tazobactam (57%). The most effective empirical antibiotic therapy (with local availability) was the combination of vancomycin and amikacin or vancomycin and imipenem. In contrast to the literature from high-resource settings, this study revealed that in a sub-Saharan African context, Gram-negative bacteria are the most common causative microorganisms of FRI. This study revealed striking resistance rates to commonly used antibiotics, which will require urgent action to prevent antimicrobial resistance in low and middle-income countries.

Data on the implementation of international consensus guidelines for fracture-related infection (FRI) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are scarce. This study assessed whether FRI diagnosis and management in an LMIC align with these recommendations. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter study across four tertiary hospitals in Yaoundé, Cameroon (September 2022–July 2025). All consecutive patients with a working FRI diagnosis were included. Confirmatory/suggestive diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies were assessed against consensus guidelines. Results: A total of 169 patients were included (mean age 39.4 ± 15.4 years; 72.7 % male). In 34.3 % of cases, FRI occurred without prior surgery, limiting applicability of the Willenegger and Roth classification. Clinical confirmatory criteria were present in 97 % of cases. Microbiological standards were seldom achieved: none fulfilled sampling quantity, and only 46.6 % met sampling method recommendations. A microbiological confirmatory criterion was documented in 36 patients (21.3 %); histopathology was rarely performed (1.2 %), and nuclear imaging was not used. Most patients (81.1 %) were on antibiotics before admission or surgery. The most common treatment strategies were suppressive antibiotic therapy (44.4 %); one-stage (11.2 %) or two-stage (10.7 %) debridement, antibiotics, and implant exchange (DAIEX); and debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR; 9.5 %). Overall, 62.7 % of treatments deviated from consensus guidelines. Conclusion: Nearly two-thirds of FRIs in this LMIC setting were managed outside international consensus guidelines. While the consensus definition is applicable, diagnostic capacity remains limited and microbiological standards are often impractical. Context-adapted, evidence-based guidelines are urgently needed to improve outcomes where the burden is highest.

Background: Fracture-related infection (FRI) represents one of the most challenging complications in trauma care and disproportionately affects patients in low-resource settings, where diagnostic capacity, surgical infrastructure, and access to microbiology and reconstructive expertise are limited. Methods: An expert group was convened through the African Bone and Joint Infection Network (ABJIN) under the auspices of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) and with support from the AO Alliance. Recommendations were developed through a three-step process: (1) a two-part survey assessing current practice and priority needs among clinicians from African countries, (2) an in-person multidisciplinary consensus meeting during the COSECSA Congress (Harare, 2024), and (3) an iterative collaborative review by a wider panel of clinicians from 14 countries. Results: The group produced context-adapted recommendations covering prevention, terminology, diagnosis, investigations, holistic patient optimization, antimicrobial therapy, local antibiotic delivery, and surgical management of FRI in low-resource settings. Key themes include the following: management of open fractures; diagnostic pathways prioritizing clinical criteria and intra-operative sampling; antimicrobial strategies reflecting local microbiology and drug availability; affordable local antibiotic carriers; and the importance of soft-tissue management, multidisciplinary collaboration, and centralization of complex cases. Barriers specific to low-resource settings – delayed presentation, restricted microbiology services, limited implant availability, and high burdens of comorbidities – were integrated into the recommendations. Conclusion: These consensus-based, context-specific recommendations provide practical guidance for FRI in low-resource settings. They aim to support clinicians in delivering safe, cost-effective care, accepting structural limitations while promoting standardization and audit. Further clinical research from low- and middle-income countries is needed to strengthen the evidence base and refine these recommendations.