4.5 Article

The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR CLINICIANS

Journal

BONE & JOINT JOURNAL
Volume 103B, Issue 1, Pages 18-25

Publisher

BRITISH EDITORIAL SOC BONE & JOINT SURGERY
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.103b1.bjj-2020-1381.r1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper discusses the difficulty in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection and the lack of consensus on the diagnostic tests. Through a comprehensive review and expert panel assessment, a three-level approach to diagnosis has been developed and endorsed by relevant societies, providing clinicians with useful guidance in daily practice.
Aims The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition. Methods This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance. Results This process evolved a three-level approach to the diagnostic continuum, resulting in a definition set and guidance, which has been fully endorsed by EBJIS, MSIS, and ESGIAI. Conclusion The definition presents a novel three-level approach to diagnosis, based on the most robust evidence, which will be useful to clinicians in daily practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available