• Users Online: 3767
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 59-68

Current classifications of pin site infection and quality of reporting: A systematic review


1 Limb Reconstruction and Bone Infection Service, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
2 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
3 Limb Reconstruction and Bone Infection Service, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, Targu Mures, Romania

Correspondence Address:
Alexis Dimitris Iliadis
Limb Reconstruction and Bone Infection Service, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jllr.jllr_31_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Pin site infection is a commonly encountered complication. There is no universally accepted definition or classification system which impairs data interpretation and the development of evidence-based practice. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the existing classification systems and the quality of reporting pin site infections in the current literature. Materials and Methods: The systematic review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO; National Institute for Health Research and University of York, 2015) and conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A comprehensive search strategy was executed. Data were extracted pertaining to clinical, radiological, microbiological, and mechanical elements alongside associated grading and demographics. The scope of the classification systems was considered. Results: Twelve reports of classifications were included in the synthesis. Four classifications provide information for guiding decision-making and management while the remainder are descriptive or informative in nature. There is no classification with prognostic inference. Four of the classifications can only be applied retrospectively as they are outcome derived. Staging relies on a single variable in six of the classifications. It relies on multiple variables (maximum of four) in the remainder. Conclusion: There is a lack of a clear definition of pin site infection and a lack of a universally accepted grading system. Existing classifications focus on different aspects and have a number of limitations. Establishing standard reporting guidelines will allow for future development of a meaningful and universally accepted definition and classification.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed591    
    Printed34    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded111    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal