Next Article in Journal
Effects of Sulforaphene on the Cariogenic Properties of Streptococcus Mutans In Vitro and Dental Caries Development In Vivo
Previous Article in Journal
Prevalence of Carbapenem Resistance Genes among Acinetobacter baumannii Isolated from a Teaching Hospital in Taiwan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/antibiotics12091358
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microbiological Profile of Fracture Related Infection at a UK Major Trauma Centre

by
Kavi H. Patel
1,*,
Laura I. Gill
2,
Elizabeth K. Tissingh
1,
Athanasios Galanis
3,
Ioannis Hadjihannas
4,
Alexis D. Iliadis
1,
Nima Heidari
1,
Benny Cherian
2,
Caryn Rosmarin
2 and
Alexandros Vris
1
1
Limb Reconstruction and Bone Infection Service, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel Road, London E1 1FR, UK
2
Department of Infection, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel Road, London E1 1FR, UK
3
KAT General Hospital, Nikis 2, 14561 Kifisia, Greece
4
Barts and the London School of Medicine, Garrod Building, Turner St., London E1 2AD, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(9), 1358; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091358
Submission received: 22 May 2023 / Revised: 11 July 2023 / Accepted: 26 July 2023 / Published: 24 August 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a severe complication following trauma and orthopaedic surgery and is becoming increasingly common [1]. It places a significant burden on healthcare systems with high direct and indirect costs [2]. Effective and timely treatment is crucial to minimize the devastating impact of this condition on patients.
The treatment principles have been outlined in recent consensus guidelines and include accurate and timely diagnosis [1], surgical sampling [3], debridement (with stabilisation if required) [4,5] and targeted antimicrobial therapy [6]. An understanding of the microbial profile of FRI is crucial in providing optimal intra-focal and systemic antimicrobial therapy. This is especially relevant in those cases treated empirically or when culture results are negative. It is worth noting that in many settings the infrastructure needed to identify causative organisms is inadequate and this is a risk factor for recurrence [7].
Large multicentre studies focused on the microbiology of FRI are lacking. In addition, the term FRI is relatively new and the literature around FRI, osteomyelitis, open fractures and surgical site infection is often heterogenous in its definitions and descriptions. Current literature on the microbial profile of FRI shows wide variability but certain trends are encountered. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is the most common organism in FRI reported in the literature from both high and low-resource settings although this is a heterogeneous group of patients and pathologies [8,9,10,11].
The organisms involved in FRI following open fractures are a particular consideration. A case series of 310 Gustilo Anderson Grade III open fractures reported S. aureus as the most common organism with 28% of episodes growing an organism that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic agent prescribed on admission following injury [12]. The authors were unable to identify clinical risk factors predictive of causative organisms displaying resistance to their standard antibiotic regime.
In another study of 123 open fractures from Germany, the authors reported that most FRI cases were caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and that the EAST (Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma) recommendations for antimicrobial cover in open fractures were adequate for all but one of these cases [13]. Reporting on a cohort of 213 combat injuries Burns et al. found a 27% infection rate with the most common causative organisms being gram-positive [14]. Both studies have looked at surveillance sampling of open fractures but surveillance culture results were shown to correlate poorly with infective culture results [13,14]. It is also worth highlighting that the organisms present at the initial time of contamination with an open fracture may be different from the organisms causing the FRI, which may be nosocomial [15].
There may be differences in antimicrobial profile between FRI and prosthetic joint infection (PJI). In a cohort of 167 patients with FRI and PJI, S. aureus was the most common organism in FRI but overall, there was no statistical difference in pathogen distribution between groups. Difficult-to-treat pathogens were more frequently detected in the PJI group (11.6 vs. 2.3%) [16].
Recent evidence has challenged the notion that the time of FRI presentation from initial injury can influence the microbial profile [17]. A study by Corrigan et al. found that early (<2 weeks) or delayed (3–10 weeks) FRI are most likely to be polymicrobial, whereas late (>10 weeks) FRIs are more likely to be culture-negative or monomicrobial. S. aureus was still the most common organism at all time points [17]. Similarly, Depypere et al. revealed that polymicrobial infections were more frequent in early FRI although they did not feel a time-based classification was useful in guiding antibiotic therapy or in evaluating microbial profile [18].
A better understanding of FRI microbial profiles encountered in different cohorts will allow optimal antibiotic selection both for prophylaxis (open fractures and intraoperative cover) as well as for empirical treatment in cases of FRI where culture results from intra-operative samples are pending. Recommendations exist at national and institutional levels, where possible, based on known common organisms and resistance profiles. In the UK, national guidelines exist for antimicrobial prophylaxis in open fractures although they allow for local modifications [19]. In our centre, the antibiotic choice in the initial stages of open fracture management is 1.2 g co-amoxiclav and empirical FRI treatment, pending culture results, is teicoplanin and meropenem.
Antimicrobial resistance is a growing concern worldwide [20]. Resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains are of particular concern in low-resource settings. Vijayakumar et al. in a cohort of 100 patients with Staphylococcus aureus, report 75% of isolates were resistant to gentamicin, 81% to ciprofloxacin and 50% were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) [10]. In work describing two patient cohorts from 2001–2004 and 2013–2017 similar pathogens are described but they note the fall in MRSA from 11.4% to 8.3% of the Staphylococcus aureus isolates identified [21]. Rigorous antimicrobial stewardship will be essential to ensure that resistance patterns do not worsen and optimizing empiric guidelines should assist towards this.
The primary aim of this study was to describe the microbiological profile of FRI cases treated at a UK major trauma centre. The secondary aim was to present antimicrobial susceptibilities and comment on appropriate antimicrobial guidelines. We also report and comment on diagnostic and sampling strategies employed.

2. Results

Over the study period, 294 patients with FRI were treated at our unit, of which 31 had more than one infection episode at least 30 days apart (recurrence at same anatomical location), contributing to a total of 330 infection episodes. Five patients were treated for FRI but did not have any surgical samples taken and were therefore removed from data analysis. Of the 325 episodes where surgical samples were sent, there were positive cultures in 268 (82.5%) and, overall, 78 distinct organisms were isolated. Patient demographics and co-morbidities are presented in Table 1.
The anatomical distribution of cases is shown in Figure 1 with the tibia/fibula being the most common. We found no statistically significant difference in microbiology distribution with anatomical location, although one single case of Cutibacterium acnes was found in the shoulder region.
Our main finding was that S. aureus was the most isolated organism in our cohort of FRI patients, implicated in 34.2% of infection episodes; 7.1% of these were MRSA. Overall, gram-negative bacteria (GNB) accounted for 39.7% of microorganisms cultured, with the most common being Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.2% of isolates) followed by Enterobacter species (7.8%) and Escherichia coli (6.9%). A breakdown of organisms identified (Table 2) with a graphical representation of the most common organisms (Figure 2) are also given.
Our microbiological profile and resistance data used to assess predicted efficacy of our antibiotic therapy are presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. In our cohort, 16S PCR was used in 126 (38.8%) infection episodes with deep samples taken and swabs were performed in 96 episodes (29.1%).

3. Discussion

Our primary aim was to describe the microbiological profile of FRI cases at a UK major trauma centre. The secondary aim was to review antimicrobial susceptibilities and comment on whether our guidelines for empirical systemic and intra-focal antibiotic therapy were effective in our cohort of FRI patients.
The importance of S. aureus is reflected in other large studies (Sheehy et al. 32%, Ferreira et al. 39%) but these report on heterogenous groups with chronic osteomyelitis from all causes [22,23]. Waldvogel et al. reported S. aureus in approximately 60% of cases; however, the relative incidence of staphylococcal infections has fallen in subsequent studies perhaps due to a rise in contiguous infections [16,24]. A history of fracture or metalwork in-situ at the time of surgery is often associated with a broad range of organisms [25]. In this series, polymicrobial cultures were frequent (34.2% of cases) and higher than in previous studies from the developed world with Trampuz et al. reporting 27% (purely in patients with infections associated with fracture-fixation devices), Sheehy et al. 29% (although this study grouped both haematogenous and contiguous infections) [16,22] and Depypere et al. 25.3% [18].
A South African study showed a prevalence of 45% for polymicrobial infections and found that isolated gram-negative infections were most common in the post-traumatic group of patients [11]. Our overall incidence of GNB (39.7%) is significantly higher than other studies (Depypere et al. 26.2% and 27.8%) although all have found GNB to be the predominant pathogen in polymicrobial infection [18,26]. A potential explanation may be that, compared to similar studies, a higher proportion of our FRIs were related to a previous open fracture (37.4% vs. 24.7%) [18].
Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), enteric gram-negative bacilli and Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) have been shown to be commonly associated with hospital-acquired infections [22]. Whilst CoNS are commensal pathogens, they have been shown to display high rates of resistance to antibiotics of clinical relevance and with their inherent ability to produce a potent biofilm, via polysaccharide intercellular adhesin, can be challenging to treat [27]. CoNS accounted for 14% of cultured organisms in our cohort.
Overall, our empirical antibiotic therapy of teicoplanin and meropenem was effective in 96.3% of episodes. Sixteen patients had infections involving gram-negative organisms resistant to gentamicin but just three had gram-positive organisms resistant to vancomycin, which is reassuring given our choice of intra-focal antibiotics. Our empirical antibiotic regimen of a glycopeptide in combination with a β-lactam antibiotic is widely accepted with its low resistance rates even in the presence of high bacterial loads, although guidelines are based on limited evidence [6]. We use teicoplanin over the more commonly used vancomycin, due to its lower risk of adverse effects including nephrotoxicity, simpler dosing regimen and less frequent requirement for drug levels. When cultures and sensitivities are reported, antibiotic therapy is tailored accordingly and oral antibiotics are considered where possible. Spellberg and Lipsky, in their 2011 review of publications investigating the use of antibiotics in chronic osteomyelitis, concluded that oral antibiotics with high bioavailability are comparable with parenteral therapy and the addition of adjunctive rifampicin may improve cure rates [28]. The use of intra-focal antibiotic delivery at the time of surgical debridement allows high-dose antibiotic delivery in difficult-to-reach tissues whilst managing dead space. Both CERAMENT® G/V (BoneSupport AB, Lund, Sweden) and STIMULAN® (Biocomposites Ltd.,Staffordshire, UK) have been used in FRI and chronic osteomyelitis with high rates of infection remission and union [29,30]. It is likely that good outcomes can be attributed to a combination of meticulous debridement, timely ortho-plastics management and local antibiotics. Gentamicin and vancomycin have low resistance rates with this combination of local antibiotics demonstrating a sensitivity of 94.2% in our cohort of patients.
There are important differences when considering the microbiology profile of FRI compared to PJI. Firstly, the initial damage to soft tissues overlying the surgical site, contamination of open injuries with soil microorganisms and altered vascularisation following crush injury increase the risk of a wider range of pathogens in FRI. Secondly, stability following fracture fixation is essential in both treating and preventing infection, however, it is still not clear how this impacts microbial flora [31]. Studies investigating FRI have reported polymicrobial rates of around 30% compared to the 10% in PJI [26,32]. Fungal and anaerobic infections accounted for 5.6% of organisms, which whilst lower than the 10% found by Sheehy et al., are a rare and potentially severe cause of infection [21]. In those patients where Candida species were isolated, no additional risk factors were identified other than the history of metalwork following open fracture.
Our relatively high organism yield of 82.5% from culture (268/325 infection episodes where deep surgical samples were taken) may reflect our requirement for withholding antibiotics for two weeks prior to surgery and our strict standardised intra-operative sampling techniques. Onsea et al., in a multi-centre international study of 480 FRI patients, had an organism yield of 88% and similarly found the tibia and/or fibula to be the most common anatomical location for FRI [33].
Molecular techniques, which amplify bacterial DNA, have been shown to be a valuable diagnostic tool in PJI; however, their role in FRI is yet to be established [34]. In our laboratory, it is standard procedure for four tissue samples from any given orthopaedic surgery to be sent for 16S PCR if they are culture negative after 48 h. An identifiable bacterial species was detected from 34.9% of PCR samples (44/126). A total of 22 different bacteria were found. 45.5% (20/44) were gram-negative organisms, with E. coli being the most common, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. S. aureus was found in three PCR positive samples (7.0%). In 36 of the 126 cases (28.6%) where PCR was done, an organism was identified which had not been cultured. In 19 of these cases, there had been no growth at all from tissue culture so 16S PCR provided the only microbiological evidence on which to base treatment. Although culture is the gold standard and has the advantage of allowing for antibiotic susceptibility testing, where samples are culture negative, 16S PCR can be invaluable in informing management plans.
Using automated laboratory techniques, cultures that contain pathogens are usually positive by day three and most by day five [35]. Since our orthopaedic samples are incubated for 48 h, our empirical antibiotic regimen of meropenem and teicoplanin is continued during this period to prevent the colonisation of freshly debrided bone surfaces. Some organisms take longer to grow requiring cultures to continue for 10–14 days [36]. Although not performed at our centre, sonication fluid culture has been shown in a systematic review to be a useful adjunct to conventional tissue culture in FRI, but not superior [37]. Currently, there is nothing in the literature to support the routine use of sonication in FRI management.
Positive histopathological examination remains one of the confirmatory criteria in the FRI consensus definition and has recently been validated [33]. Clinicians have often resorted to extrapolating the evidence from PJI into FRI; however, Morgenstern et al. showed that the complete absence of polymorphonuclear neutrophils had a very high correlation with aseptic non-union and the presence of >5 per high-power field was always associated with FRI [38]. Our protocol includes sending a single sample for histological analysis and although this was not specifically explored in our study, we have occasionally relied on histopathological diagnosis to guide our management.
It is well accepted that superficial wound swabs do not accurately correlate with deep tissue culture results and are consequently not considered part of the FRI gold standard of care [39]. A historical paper by Mackowiak et al. found that S. aureus from sinus tracts correlated with S. aureus in the operative specimen, but, overall, only 44% of sinus-tract cultures contained the operative pathogen [40]. We ascertained which of the patients in our FRI cohort had had superficial wound swabs in the 30 days before deep surgical samples were taken in order to see how informative superficial samples might be. Of the 96 swabs performed, 20.8% (20/96) grew the same organism(s) as later cultured from surgical tissue samples or identified on PCR. 31.3% (30/96) of samples had some similarity to surgical sample culture or PCR results, e.g., one organism was found both on swabs and deep samples but the results were not completely matched. In 45.8% (44/96) there was no relationship between swab results and deep samples. Antibiotics given in the month preceding surgery may well have affected swab culture results.
Given the lack of reliable correlation between superficial swab results and the culture of surgical samples, it would not be recommended to base treatment of FRIs on wound swab culture. However, in situations where it is not possible to obtain deep samples, and where organisms grown from wound swabs are a feasible cause of FRI, it would be reasonable to choose an empirical antibiotic regimen which covers these, as well as the organisms most implicated in such infections.
There are limitations inherent with a single-centre retrospective analysis and our microbiology profile reflects on our local population and the scope of practice of one of Europe’s busiest trauma centres. Different profiles may be encountered in other settings, and this should be taken into consideration when local guidelines are being developed.
Despite this, we believe our study; the largest single-centre FRI case series in the literature, may guide other bone infection units in determining the most effective empirical antibiotic regimen for their patients, as well as promote further work on the topic that would not only allow other units to audit the appropriateness of their regimes but would also serve towards large data gathering to allow for better-informed choices in the management of FRI.

4. Materials and Methods

All adult patients treated for FRI at our major trauma centre over a six-year period (2016–2022 inclusive) were retrospectively identified from our electronic database. All patients were treated by three consultant orthopaedic surgeons with an interest in bone infection (AI, AV, NH). We report on patient and injury characteristics, anatomical site, microbiological profile and antibiotic susceptibilities. The 2018 FRI consensus definition was used for the diagnosis of FRI [1].
Our bone infection service has an established pathway whereby all patients are seen pre-operatively in a combined orthoplastics clinic and are discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting with microbiologists. Our workup typically includes appropriate imaging and blood tests and anaesthetic pre-assessment when feasible. Cessation of any antibiotic therapy two weeks prior to surgical debridement was encouraged. Deep samples were taken following a strict protocol to avoid cross-contamination with at least five samples sent for microbiology and one sample for histological analysis. Tissue homogenization was achieved using Ballotini glass beads and cultured for 10 days. Identification of organisms was performed using Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization Time-Of-Flight mass spectrometry (Maldi-TOF MS, Bruker, Bremen, Germany). Antibiotic susceptibility was tested and interpreted according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) breakpoints. Our empirical antibiotic therapy was intravenous meropenem and teicoplanin following sampling and this was continued as an inpatient until sensitivities were back (usually day 3–5). Our choice of local antibiotics was a combination of gentamicin and vancomycin with the carrier either CERAMENT® G/V (BoneSupport AB, Sweden), STIMULAN® (Biocomposites Ltd., UK) or a combination of both.
A positive microbiology result was defined as two or more samples with an indistinguishable organism and results were considered polymicrobial if two or more organisms were each identified in two or more samples, as per the FRI consensus diagnostic criteria [1,41]. The use of broad-range 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing was performed in cases where clinical suspicion of infection was high but routine cultures were negative. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of one year following treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.I., A.V. and C.R.; data curation, A.G., I.H. and K.H.P.; formal analysis, K.H.P. and L.I.G.; writing, K.H.P., L.I.G. and E.K.T.; editing, A.D.I., A.V., C.R., B.C. and N.H.; supervision, A.D.I. and C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was not applicable for this study as all data was anonymized and no patients were contacted for this study.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study but our raw anonymized data is available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Metsemakers, W.J.; Morgenstern, M.; McNally, M.A.; Moriarty, T.F.; McFadyen, I.; Scarborough, M.; Athanasou, N.A.; Ochsner, P.E.; Kuehl, R.; Raschke, M.; et al. Fracture-related infection: A consensus on definition from an international expert group. Injury 2018, 49, 505–510. [Google Scholar]
  2. Metsemakers, W.J.; Smeets, B.; Nijs, S.; Hoekstra, H. Infection after fracture fixation of the tibia: Analysis of healthcare utilization and related costs. Injury 2017, 48, 1204–1210. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Dudareva, M.; Barrett, L.K.; Morgenstern, M.; Atkins, B.L.; Brent, A.J.; McNally, M.A. Providing an Evidence Base for Tissue Sampling and Culture Interpretation in Suspected Fracture-Related Infection. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2021, 103, 977–983. [Google Scholar]
  4. Metsemakers, W.J.; Morgenstern, M.; Senneville, E.; Borens, O.; Govaert, G.A.M.; Onsea, J.; Depypere, M.; Richards, R.G.; Trampuz, A.; Verhofstad, M.H.J.; et al. General treatment principles for fracture-related infection: Recommendations from an international expert group. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2020, 140, 1013–1027. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Bezstarosti, H.; Metsemakers, W.J.; van Lieshout, E.M.M.; Voskamp, L.W.; Kortram, K.; McNally, M.A.; Marais, L.C.; Verhofstad, M.H.J. Management of critical-sized bone defects in the treatment of fracture-related infection: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 141, 1215–1230. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Depypere, M.; Kuehl, R.; Metsemakers, W.J.; Senneville, E.; McNally, M.A.; Obremskey, W.T.; Zimmerli, W.; Atkins, B.L.; Trampuz, A. Recommendations for Systemic Antimicrobial Therapy in Fracture-Related Infection: A Consensus from an International Expert Group. J. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 34, 30–41. [Google Scholar]
  7. Vijayakumar, A.B.; Reddy, Y.P.; Suphala, B.; Gopalakrishnan, A.; Vinod Kumar, C.S. Microbiological and antibiotic profile of osteomyelitis in tertiary care hospital. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 8, 910–914. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang, B.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, J.; Han, W.; Hersi, S.A.; Tang, X. Epidemiology and microbiology of fracture-related infection: A multicenter study in Northeast China. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2021, 16, 490. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Yusuf, E.; Steinrucken, J.; Buchegger, T.; Trampuz, A.; Borens, O. A descriptive study on the surgery and the microbiology of Gustilo type III fractures in an university hospital in Switzerland. Acta Orthop. Belg. 2015, 81, 327–332. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ardehali, B.; Geoghegan, G.; Khajuria, A.; Reissis, D.; Lawton, G.; Jain, A.; Simmons, J.; Naique, S.; Bhattacharya, R.; Pearse, M.; et al. Microbiological and functional outcomes after open extremity fractures sustained overseas: The experience of a UK level I trauma centre. JPRAS Open 2018, 15, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Mthethwa, P.; Marais, L.C. The microbiology of chronic osteomyelitis in a developing world setting. S. Afr. Orthop. J. 2017, 16, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gonzalez, A.; Suva, D.; Dunkel, N.; Nicodeme, J.D.; Lomessy, A.; Lauper, N.; Rohner, P.; Hoffmeyer, P.; Uckay, I. Are there clinical variables determining antibiotic prophylaxis-susceptible versus resistant infection in open fractures? Int. Orthop. 2014, 38, 2323–2327. [Google Scholar]
  13. Otchwemah, R.; Grams, V.; Tjardes, T.; Shafizadeh, S.; Bathis, H.; Maegele, M.; Messler, S.; Bouillon, B.; Probst, C. Bacterial contamination of open fractures—Pathogens, antibiotic resistances and therapeutic regimes in four hospitals of the trauma network Cologne, Germany. Injury 2015, 46 Suppl 4, S104–S108. [Google Scholar]
  14. Burns, T.C.; Stinner, D.J.; Mack, A.W.; Potter, B.K.; Beer, R.; Eckel, T.T.; Possley, D.R.; Beltran, M.J.; Hayda, R.A.; Andersen, R.C.; et al. Microbiology and injury characteristics in severe open tibia fractures from combat. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012, 72, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Glass, G.E.; Barrett, S.P.; Sanderson, F.; Pearse, M.F.; Nanchahal, J. The microbiological basis for a revised antibiotic regimen in high-energy tibial fractures: Preventing deep infections by nosocomial organisms. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2011, 64, 375–380. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rupp, M.; Baertl, S.; Walter, N.; Hitzenbichler, F.; Ehrenschwender, M.; Alt, V. Is There a Difference in Microbiological Epidemiology and Effective Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy Comparing Fracture-Related Infection and Periprosthetic Jt. Infection? A Retrospective Comparative Study. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 921. [Google Scholar]
  17. Corrigan, R.A.; Sliepen, J.; Dudareva, M.; Govaert, G.; Atkins, B.L.; Rentenaar, R.; Wouthuyzen-Bakker, M.; McNally, M.A. Causative Pathogens Do Not Differ between Early, Delayed or Late Fracture-Related Infections. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Depypere, M.; Sliepen, J.; Onsea, J.; Debaveye, Y.; Govaert, G.; Ijpma, F.; Zimmerli, W.; Metsemakers, W.-J. The microbiological etiology of fracture-related infection. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 934485. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  19. BOAST. British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) Guidelines for Open Fractures; British Orthopaedic Association: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. World Health Organisation. WHO AMR Global Priorities 2022; World Health Organization: Genève, Switzerland, 2022.
  21. Dudareva, M.; Hotchen, A.J.; Ferguson, J.; Hodgson, S.; Scarborough, M.; Atkins, B.L.; McNally, M.A. The microbiology of chronic osteomyelitis: Changes over ten years. J. Infect. 2019, 79, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Sheehy, S.H.; Atkins, B.A.; Bejon, P.; Byren, I.; Wyllie, D.; Athanasou, N.A.; Berendt, A.R.; McNally, M.A. The microbiology of chronic osteomyelitis: Prevalence of resistance to common empirical anti-microbial agents. J. Infect. 2010, 60, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ferreira, N.; Reddy, K.; Venter, R.G.; Centner, C.M.; Laubscher, M. Antibiogram profiles and efficacy of antibiotic regimens of bacterial isolates from chronic osteomyelitis of the appendicular skeleton: A developing-world perspective. S. Afr. Med. J. 2021, 111, 642–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Waldvogel, F.A.; Medoff, G.; Swartz, M.N. Osteomyelitis: A review of clinical features, therapeutic considerations and unusual aspects. N. Engl. J. Med. 1970, 282, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Montalvo, R.N.; Natoli, R.M.; O’Hara, N.N.; Schoonover, C.; Berger, P.Z.; Reahl, G.B.; Shirtliff, M.E.; Manson, T.T.; Torbert, J.T.; O’Toole, R.V.; et al. Variations in the organisms causing deep surgical site infections in fracture patients at a level 1 trauma center (2006–2015). J. Orthop. Trauma 2018, 32, e475–e481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Depypere, M.; Morgenstern, M.; Kuehl, R.; Senneville, E.; Moriarty, T.F.; Obremskey, W.T.; Zimmerli, W.; Trampuz, A.; Lagrou, K.; Metsemakers, W.J. Pathogenesis and management of fracture-related infection. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 572–578. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Morgenstern, M.; Erichsen, C.; von Rüden, C.; Metsemakers, W.J.; Kates, S.L.; Moriarty, T.F.; Hungerer, S. Staphylococcal orthopaedic device-related infections in older patients. Injury 2016, 47, 1427–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Spellman, B.; Lipsky, B. Systemic antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 54, 393–407. [Google Scholar]
  29. Patel, P.; Iliadis, A.-D.; Vris, A.; Heidari, N.; Trompeter, A. Intramedullary application of local antibiotic bullets for the treatment of long bone fracture related infection. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2022, 33, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. McNally, M.A.; Ferguson, J.Y.; Scarborough, M.; Ramsden, A.; Stubbs, D.; Atkins, B. Mid- to long-term results of single-stage surgery for patients with chronic osteomyelitis using a bioabsorbable gentamicin-loaded ceramic carrier. Bone Jt. J. 2022, 104, 1095–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Foster, A.L.; Moriarty, T.F.; Zalavras, C.; Morgenstern, M.; Jaiprakash, A.; Crawford, R.; Burch, M.A.; Boot, W.; Tetsworth, K.; Miclau, T.; et al. The influence of biomechanical stability on bone healing and fracture-related infection: The legacy of Stephan Perren. Injury 2021, 52, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Flurin, L.; Greenwood-Quaintance, K.E.; Patel, R. Microbiology of polymicrobial prosthetic Jt. infection. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 94, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Onsea, J.; Van Lieshout, E.M.M.; Zalavras, C.; Sliepen, J.; Depypere, M.; Noppe, N.; Ferguson, J.; Verhofstad, M.H.J.; Govaert, G.A.M.; IJpma, F.F.A.; et al. Validation of the diagnostic criteria of the consenus definition of fracture-related infection. Injury 2022, 53, 1867–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Morgenstern, M.; Kühl, R.; Eckardt, H.; Acklin, Y.; Stanic, B.; Garcia, M.; Baumhoer, D.; Metsemakers, W.J. Diagnostic challenges and future persepctives in fracture-realted infection. Injury 2018, 49, S83–S90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Minassian, A.M.; Osmon, D.R.; Berendt, A.R. Clinical guidelines in the management of prosthetic Jt. infection. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69 Suppl 1, i29–i35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schäfer, P.; Fink, B.; Sandow, D.; Margull, A.; Berger, I.; Frommelt, L. Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic Jt. infection: A promising strategy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 47, 1403–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Onsea, J.; Depypere, M.; Govaert, G.; Kuehl, R.; Vandendriessche, T.; Morgenstern, M.; McNally, M.; Trampuz, A.; Metsemakers, W.J. Accuracy of tissue and sonication fluid sampling for the diagnosis of fracture-related infection: A systematic review and critical appraisal. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2018, 3, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Morgenstern, M.; Athanasou, N.A.; Ferguson, J.Y.; Metsemakers, W.J.; Atkins, B.L.; McNally, M.A. The value of quantitative histology in the diagnosis of fracture-related infection. Bone Jt. J. 2018, 100, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aggarwal, V.K.; Higuera, C.; Deirmengian, G.; Parvizi, J.; Austin, M.S. Swab cultures are not as effective as tissue cultures for diagnosis of periprosthetic Jt. infection. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013, 471, 3196–3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mackowiak, P.A.; Jones, S.R.; Smith, J.W. Diagnostic value of sinus-tract cultures in chronic osteomyelitis. JAMA 1978, 239, 2772–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Govaert, G.A.M.; Kuehl, R.; Atkins, B.L.; Trampuz, A.; Morgenstern, M.; Obremskey, W.T.; Verhofstad, M.H.J.; McNally, M.A.; Metsemakers, W.J. Fracture-Related Infection (FRI) Consensus Group. Diagnosing Fracture-Related Infection: Current Concepts and Recommendations. J. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 34, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 12 01358 g001
Figure 1. Anatomical distribution of fracture-related infection cases.
Figure 1. Anatomical distribution of fracture-related infection cases.
Antibiotics 12 01358 g001
Antibiotics 12 01358 g002
Figure 2. Top five isolated organisms (%).
Figure 2. Top five isolated organisms (%).
Antibiotics 12 01358 g002
Table 1. Fracture-related infection (FRI) patient characteristics (N = 294).
Table 1. Fracture-related infection (FRI) patient characteristics (N = 294).
Demographics (%)
Mean age at diagnosis (years)48
Male212 (72)
Female82 (28)
Injury (%)
Open110 (37.4)
Closed184 (62.6)
Co-morbidities (%)
Diabetes8 (1.6)
HIV2 (0.6)
Drug/alcohol abuse15 (4.7)
Table 2. Isolated organisms (N = 463).
Table 2. Isolated organisms (N = 463).
Isolated Organisms
Staphylococci186 (40.2%)Enterobacterales124 (26.8%)
Staphylococcus aureus113 (24.4%)Enterobacter species36 (7.8%)
Coagulase-negative staphylococci65 (14.0%)Escherichia coli32 (6.9%)
Klebsiella species19 (4.1%)
Streptococci21 (4.5%)Proteus species14 (3.0%)
Group B streptococci8 (1.7%)Citrobacter species9 (1.9%)
Strep. dysgalactiae8 (1.7%)Morganella morganii5 (1.1%)
Viridans streptococci5 (1.1%)Serratia species4 (0.9%)
Providencia species3 (0.6%)
Enterococci28 (6%)Salmonella typhimurium1 (0.2%)
Enterococcus faecalis17 (3.7%)Pantoea species1 (0.2%)
Enterococcus faecium7 (1.5%)
Other Enterococcus species4 (0.9%)Non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli42 (9.1%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa38 (8.2%)
Other gram-positive aerobic organisms11 (2.4%)Acinetobacter baumannii3 (0.6%)
Corynebacterium species Stenotrophomonas maltophilia1 (0.2%)
11 (2.4%)
Gram-positive anaerobes Gram-negative anaerobes7 (1.5%)
Peptostreptococcus species18 (3.9%)Bacteroides species6 (1.3%)
Finegoldia magna8 (1.7%)Prevotella species1 (0.2%)
Actinomyces species4 (0.9%)
Clostridium species3 (0.6%)Fungal8 (1.7%)
Cutibacterium acnes2 (0.4%)Candida albicans4 (0.9%)
1 (0.2%)Candida dublinensis1 (0.2%)
Candida glabrata1 (0.2%)
Aspergillus fumigatus1 (0.2%)
Rhizopus arrhizus1 (0.5)
Table 3. Culture results (%).
Table 3. Culture results (%).
Total Infection Episodes = 325
No significant growth (on cultures or PCR)57 (17.5)
Single-organism growth157 (48.3)
Polymicrobial111 (34.2)
Total potentially pathogenic organisms isolated = 463
Gram +ve265 (57.2)
Gram −ve184 (39.7)
Gram-variable1 (0.2)
Mixed anaerobes5 (1.1)
Fungal8 (1.7)
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) samples = 126
Organism identified44 (34.9)
Organism identified on PCR alone (culture negative)19 (15.1)
Superficial swabs = 96
Same organism as deep culture/PCR20 (20.8)
No similarity to deep culture/PCR44 (45.8)
Table 4. Infection episodes involving resistant organisms.
Table 4. Infection episodes involving resistant organisms.
Methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus		8 (2.4) 113
7.1% of S. aureus isolated
Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci3 (0.9)
10.7% of 28 Enterococcus species isolated
Extended spectrum beta-lactamases14 (4.2)
ampC29 (8.8)
Carbapenemase-producing organisms3 (0.9)
Other multi-drug resistant organisms1 (0.3)
Table 5. Infection episodes involving organisms resistant to empiric treatment.
Table 5. Infection episodes involving organisms resistant to empiric treatment.
Meropenem-resistant gram-negatives5 (1.5%)
Gentamicin-resistant gram-negatives16 (4.8%)
Teicoplanin-resistant gram-positives1 (0.3%)
Vancomycin-resistant gram-positives3 (0.9%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Patel, K.H.; Gill, L.I.; Tissingh, E.K.; Galanis, A.; Hadjihannas, I.; Iliadis, A.D.; Heidari, N.; Cherian, B.; Rosmarin, C.; Vris, A. Microbiological Profile of Fracture Related Infection at a UK Major Trauma Centre. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091358

AMA Style

Patel KH, Gill LI, Tissingh EK, Galanis A, Hadjihannas I, Iliadis AD, Heidari N, Cherian B, Rosmarin C, Vris A. Microbiological Profile of Fracture Related Infection at a UK Major Trauma Centre. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(9):1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091358

Chicago/Turabian Style

Patel, Kavi H., Laura I. Gill, Elizabeth K. Tissingh, Athanasios Galanis, Ioannis Hadjihannas, Alexis D. Iliadis, Nima Heidari, Benny Cherian, Caryn Rosmarin, and Alexandros Vris. 2023. "Microbiological Profile of Fracture Related Infection at a UK Major Trauma Centre" Antibiotics 12, no. 9: 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091358

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop