English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

S ince 2011, when Parvizi and colleagues advocated for [4], and ultimately delivered, a consensus definition of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) [5], we have seen the definition [2] receive widespread acceptance within the clinical community. Prior to the availability of this consensus definition, Parvizi and colleagues noted that discrepancies among the numerous definitions of PJI available at that time complicated the interpretation of clinical research. After convening a panel of experts, they developed a consensus definition that has provided uniformity across studies, improving not only patient care but also the value of clinical research. The issue we wish to address in this letter is that a large proportion of our infections occur in trauma patients with surgically fixed fractures. Infection after fracture fixation is one of the most challenging musculoskeletal complications in trauma surgery today. However, accurately estimating the impact of this fracture-related complication has been hampered by the lack of a clear definition, mirroring the situation for PJI identified more than 5 years ago. In contrast to the situation for PJI, there currently is no consensus definition for infection after fracture fixation. Trauma surgeons understand that the definition for PJI is not translatable to infection after fracture fixation. We sometimes use the CDC guidelines for surgical site infection, which distinguishes between superficial, deep, and organ/space [3]. Unfortunately, neither the PJI nor the (RE: Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: From the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992-2994.). The authors certify that they, or any members of their immediate families, have no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR or The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. W.-J. Metsemakers MD, PhD (&) Department of Trauma Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium e-mail: willem-jan.metsemakers@uzleuven.be

Letter to the Editor: New Definition for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: From the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society