Reply to the Letter to the Editor: New Definition for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: From the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Parvizi, J. Clin Orthop Relat Res (2017) 475: 291. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5088-5
- 430 Downloads
To the Editor,
I would like to thank Metsemakers and colleagues for their insightful letter related to our article published in 2011, introducing the Musculoskeletal Infection Society’s (MSIS) definition of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). As the authors correctly point out, the definition introduced by the MSIS was the result of a consensus reached among a group of experts that was convened at the time. A further consensus meeting in 2013 endorsed the MSIS definition of PJI and altered it slightly .
The authors of the letter are generous with their comments. I agree that the introduction of a “standard” definition of PJI has brought some harmony into a field that suffered much variability. I also agree wholeheartedly with the authors that such initiative in the field of trauma, and for that matter, other orthopaedic subspecialties such as shoulder and elbow surgery, is desperately needed. The proposal by the authors to convene a workgroup to address issues related to infection occurring after trauma, including a definition for infected nonunion, for example, is outstanding.
In fact, during the last consensus meeting on PJI in 2013, the need to extend the consensus workgroup to include other subspecialties was discussed. Heeding that recommendation by some of the delegates, the next consensus meeting that will be held in 2018 intends to convene a group of experts in the field of trauma, shoulder and elbow, foot and ankle, spine, and oncology to address the subspecialty specific questions. We very much hope that the authors of this letter will consider joining that consensus meeting to accomplish the much needed task that they have elegantly outlined.