Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted. Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature. A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality. This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy. PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.

Nonunions and fracture-related infections represent a significant complication in orthopedic and trauma care, with their incidence rising due to an aging, more comorbid global population and the escalating threat of multi-resistant pathogens. This narrative review highlights pivotal advancements in diagnostics and therapeutic approaches, while also providing an outlook on future directions. Diagnostic methodologies have significantly evolved from traditional cultures to sophisticated molecular techniques like metagenomic next-generation sequencing and advanced imaging. Simultaneously, therapeutic strategies have undergone substantial refinement, encompassing orthoplastic management for infected open fractures and the innovative application of antibiotic-loaded bone substitutes for local drug delivery. The effective integration of these possibilities into daily patient care critically depends on specialized centers. These institutions play an indispensable role in managing complex cases and fostering innovation. Despite considerable progress over the past 25 years, ongoing research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a steadfast commitment to evidence-based practice remain crucial to transforming management for the future.

Spondylodiscitis is a rather rare condition with an annual incidence of 1–7 per 100,000. Thus, empirical data on the treatment of this disease are limited. In 2020, the first German guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of spondylodiscitis was published. In a 5-year retrospective analysis, we examined the patient collective, the current diagnosis and treatment strategy, and the effect of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) diagnostics on therapeutic decisions of a consecutive monocentric cohort of 66 patients without neurological symptoms. The majority of the patients were male (55%) with a mean age of 74 years. Non-operative therapy was found to be associated with short-term treatment success in 54 (82%) of the patients. In 12 patients, who underwent surgical therapy, MRI diagnostics and clinical findings were equally important for the decision to perform a surgery. Patients treated operatively stayed for an average of 33.6 (±12.9) days in the hospital and thus significantly longer than non-operatively treated patients with 22.2 (±8.0) days. The in-house standard of care did not essentially deviate from the guideline’s recommendations. Future research should address early detection of the need for surgical therapy, and immediate anti-infective treatment appropriate to the detected pathogen.