Aims. Biofilm-related infection is a major complication that occurs in orthopaedic surgery. Various treatments are available but efficacy to eradicate infections varies significantly. A systematic review was performed to evaluate therapeutic interventions combating biofilm-related infections on in vivo animal models. Methods. Literature research was performed on PubMed and Embase databases. Keywords used for search criteria were “bone AND biofilm”. Information on the species of the animal model, bacterial strain, evaluation of biofilm and bone infection, complications, key findings on observations, prevention, and treatment of biofilm were extracted. Results. A total of 43 studies were included. Animal models used included fracture-related infections (ten studies), periprosthetic joint infections (five studies), spinal infections (three studies), other implant-associated infections, and osteomyelitis. The most common bacteria were Staphylococcus species. Biofilm was most often observed with scanning electron microscopy. The natural history of biofilm revealed that the process of bacteria attachment, proliferation, maturation, and dispersal would take 14 days. For systemic mono-antibiotic therapy, only two of six studies using vancomycin reported significant biofilm reduction, and none reported eradication. Ten studies showed that combined systemic and topical antibiotics are needed to achieve higher biofilm reduction or eradication, and the effect is decreased with delayed treatment. Overall, 13 studies showed promising therapeutic potential with surface coating and antibiotic loading techniques. Conclusion. Combined topical and systemic application of antimicrobial agents effectively reduces biofilm at early stages. Future studies with sustained release of antimicrobial and biofilm-dispersing agents tailored to specific pathogens are warranted to achieve biofilm eradication. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):700–714

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

Aims. To assess the diagnostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP), leucocyte count (LC), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in late fracture-related infection (FRI). Materials and Methods. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched focusing on the diagnostic value of CRP, LC, and ESR in late FRI. Sensitivity and specificity combinations were extracted for each marker. Average estimates were obtained using bivariate mixed effects models. Results. A total of 8284 articles were identified but only six were suitable for inclusion. Sensitivity of CRP ranged from 60.0% to 100.0% and specificity from 34.3% to 85.7% in all publications considered. Five articles were pooled for meta-analysis, showing a sensitivity and specificity of 77.0% and 67.9%, respectively. For LC, this was 22.9% to 72.6%, and 73.5% to 85.7%, respectively, in five articles. Four articles were pooled for meta-analysis, resulting in a 51.7% sensitivity and 67.1% specificity. For ESR, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 37.1% to 100.0% and 59.0% to 85.0%, respectively, in five articles. Three articles were pooled in meta-analysis, showing a 45.1% sensitivity and 79.3% specificity. Four articles analyzed the value of combined inflammatory markers, reporting an increased diagnostic accuracy. These results could not be pooled due to heterogeneity. Conclusion. The serum inflammatory markers CRP, LC, and ESR are insufficiently accurate to diagnose late FRI, but they may be used as a suggestive sign in its diagnosis