Objectives: As well as debridement and irrigation, soft-tissue coverage, and osseous stabilization, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is considered the benchmark in the management of open fractures and considerably reduces the risk of subsequent fracture-related infections (FRI). The direct application of antibiotics in the surgical field (local antibiotics) has been used for decades as additional prophylaxis in open fractures, although definitive evidence confirming a beneficial effect is scarce. The purpose of the present study was to review the clinical evidence regarding the effect of prophylactic application of local antibiotics in open limb fractures.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Cohort studies investigating the effect of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared with systemic prophylaxis alone in the management of open fractures were included and the data were pooled in a meta-analysis.Results: In total, eight studies which included 2738 patients were eligible for quantitative synthesis. The effect of antibiotic-loaded poly(methyl methacrylate) beads was investigated by six of these studies, and two studies evaluated the effect of local antibiotics applied without a carrier. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower infection rate when local antibiotics were applied (4.6%; 91/1986) than in the control group receiving standard systemic prophylaxis alone (16.5%; 124/752) (p < 0.001) (odds ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.40).Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests a risk reduction in FRI of 11.9% if additional local antibiotics are given prophylactically for open limb fractures. However, due to limited quality, heterogeneity, and considerable risk of bias, the pooling of data from primary studies has to be interpreted with caution. Cite this article: M. Morgenstern, A. Vallejo, M. A. McNally, T. F. Moriarty, J. Y. Ferguson, S. Nijs, WJ. Metsemakers. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:447–456. The effect of local antibiotic prophylaxis when treating open limb fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.77.BJR-2018-0043.R1

Although nonunions are among the most common complications after long-bone fracture fixation, the definition of fracture nonunion remains controversial and varies widely. The aim of this study was to identify the definitions and diagnostic criteria used in the scientific literature to describe nonunions after long-bone fractures. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. Prospective clinical studies, in which adult long-bone fracture nonunions were investigated as main subject, were included in this analysis. Data on nonunion definitions described in each study were extracted and collected in a database. Although 148 studies met the inclusion criteria, only 50% (74/148) provided a definition for their main study subject. Nonunion was defined in these studies based on time-related criteria in 85% (63/74), on radiographic criteria in 62% (46/74), and on clinical criteria in 45% (33/74). A combination of clinical, radiographic and time-related criteria for definition was found in 38% (28/74). The time interval between fracture and the time point when authors defined an unhealed fracture as a nonunion showed considerable heterogeneity, ranging from three to twelve months. In the current orthopaedic literature, we found a lack of consensus with regard to the definition of long-bone nonunions. Without valid and reliable definition criteria for nonunion, standardization of diagnostic and treatment algorithms as well as the comparison of clinical studies remains problematic. The lack of a clear definition emphasizes the need for a consensus-based approach to the diagnosis of fracture nonunion centred on clinical, radiographical and time-related criteria.

Aims: The principle strategies of fracture-related infection (FRI) treatment are debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant retention (DAIR) or debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant removal/exchange. Increasing the period between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery is believed to be associated with higher failure rates after DAIR. However, a clear time-related cut-off has never been scientifically defined. This systematic review analyzed the influence of the interval between fracture fixation and FRI revision surgery on success rates after DAIR. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection, investigating the outcome after DAIR procedures of long bone FRIs in clinical studies published until January 2020. Results: Six studies, comprising 276 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Data from this review showed that with a short duration of infection (up to three weeks) and under strict preconditions, retention of the implant is associated with high success rates of 86% to 100%. In delayed infections with a fracture fixation-FRI revision surgery interval of three to ten weeks, absence of recurrent infection was reported in 82% to 89%. Data on late FRIs, with a fracture fixation-FRI revision surgery interval of more than ten weeks, are scarce and a success rate of 67% was reported. Conclusion: Acute/early FRI, with a short duration of infection, can successfully be treated with DAIR up to ten weeks after osteosynthesis. The limited available data suggest that chronic/late onset FRI treated with DAIR may be associated with a higher rate of recurrence. Successful outcome is dependent on managing all aspects of the infection. Thus, time from fracture fixation is not the only factor that should be considered in treatment planning of FRI. Due to the heterogeneity of the available data, these conclusions have to be interpreted with caution. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):213–221.

After septic failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and multiple revision operations resulting in impaired function, bone and/or soft-tissue damage a reconstruction with a revision arthroplasty might be impossible. Salvage procedures to regain mobility and quality of life are an above-the-knee amputation or knee arthrodesis. The decision process for the patient and surgeon is difficult and data comparing arthrodesis versus amputation in terms of function and quality of life are scarce. The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the specific complications, functional outcome and quality of life of above-the-knee amputation (AKA) and modular knee-arthrodesis (MKA) after septic failure of total knee arthroplasty. Eighty-one patients treated with MKA and 32 patients treated with AKA after septic failure of TKA between 2003 and 2012 were included in this cohort study. Demographic data, comorbidities, pathogens and complications such as re-infection, implant-failure or revision surgeries were recorded in 55MKA and 20AKA patients. Functional outcome with use of the Lower-Extremity-Functional-Score (LEFS) and the patients reported general health status (SF-12-questionnaire) was recorded after a mean interval of 55 months. A major complication occurred in more than one-third of the cases after MKA and AKA, whereas recurrence of infection was with 22% after MKA and 35% after AKA the most common complication. Patients with AKA and MKA showed a comparable functional outcome with a mean LEFS score of 37 and 28 respectively (p = 0.181). Correspondingly, a comparable physical quality of life with a mean physical SF-12 of 36 for AKA patients and a mean score of 30 for MKA patients was observed (p = 0.080). Notably, ten AKA patients that could be fitted with a microprocessor-controlled-knee-joint demonstrated with a mean LEFS of 56 a significantly better functional outcome than other amputee patients (p < 0.01) or MKA patients (p < 0.01). Naturally, the decision process for the treatment of desolate situations of septic failures following revision knee arthroplasty is depending on various factors. Nevertheless, the amputation should be considered as an option in patients with a good physical and mental condition.

Update: This article was updated on July 1, 2021, because of a previous error. On page 983, a section entitled “Appendix” with a link to the data supplement was previously not included and has now been added. An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021 August 4;103(15):e62. Background: The recent consensus definition for the diagnosis of fracture-related infection (FRI) includes the identification of indistinguishable microorganisms in at least 2 surgical deep-tissue specimens as a confirmatory criterion. However, this cut-off, and the total number of specimens from a patient with suspected FRI that should be sent for microbiological testing, have not been validated. We endeavored to estimate the accuracy of different numbers of specimens and diagnostic cut-offs for microbiological testing of deep-tissue specimens in patients undergoing surgical treatment for possible FRI. Methods: A total of 513 surgical procedures in 385 patients with suspected FRI were included. A minimum of 2 surgical deep-tissue specimens were submitted for microbiological testing; 5 or more specimens were analyzed in 345 procedures (67%). FRI was defined by the presence of any confirmatory criteria other than microbiology. Resampling was utilized to model the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic cut-offs for the number of surgical specimens yielding indistinguishable microorganisms and for the total number of specimens. The likelihood of detecting all clinically relevant microorganisms was also assessed. Results: A diagnostic cut-off of at least 2 of 5 specimens with indistinguishable microorganisms identified by culture was 68% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI], 62% to 74%) and 87% specific (95% CI, 81% to 94%) for the diagnosis of FRI. Two out of 3 specimens were 60% sensitive (95% CI, 55% to 66%) and 92% specific (95% CI, 88% to 96%). Submitting only 3 deep-tissue specimens risked missing clinically relevant microorganisms in at least 1 in 10 cases. Conclusions: The present study was the first to validate microbiological criteria for the diagnosis of FRI, supporting the current confirmatory diagnostic criteria for FRI. Analysis of at least 5 deep-tissue specimens in patients with possible FRI is recommended. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.