Abstract
Aim
There is limited data on the frequency and impact of untoward events such as glove perforation, contamination of the surgical field (drape perforation, laceration, detachment), the unsterile object in the surgical field (hair, sweat droplet…), defecation, elevated air temperature…that may happen in the operating theatre. These events should influence the surgical site infection rate but it is not clear to what extent. We wanted to calculate the frequency and measure the impact of these events on the infection and general revision rate.
Method
In our institution, scrub nurses prospectively and diligently record untoward events in the theatres. We have an institutional implant registry with close to 100% data completion since 2001, and surgeons register complications before discharge. We analysed the respective databases and compared the revision and infection rate in the group with untoward events with the outcome of all arthroplasty patients within the same period. Two-tailed Z statistical test was used for analysis.
Results
Between 1.1.2012 and 31.12.2018 we operated 13574 prosthetic joints: 6232 primary THR (total hip replacement) and 5466 primary KR (total and partial knee replacement) and 1245 and 631 revisions respectively. During this period, we recorded 372 events (2.74%) including 20 (0.15 %) defecations, 40 (0.29 %) unsterile object in the surgical field, 73 (0.54%) field sterility violations, 45 (0.33 %) glove perforations, 45 (0.33 %) occasions with elevated air temperature, 106 (0.78%) with guests in the OR, 11 (0.08%) with wound near the surgical field, and 32 (0.24%) with other events. We followed the patients till 1.1.2022, in this time we recorded 27 (7.26%) reoperations in the cohort with untoward events. There were 9 (2.42%) infections and 18 (4.84%) aseptic revisions in the group with unwanted events.
The infection rate for all TJR (total joint replacement) from the period 2012-2018, followed till 1.1.2022 was 2.23%, the revision rate for any reason was 4.37%. For all THR (primary and revision) the infection rate was 0.84%, the overall revision rate was 3.18% and for the KR (primary and revision) 1.71% and 5,82% respectively. The difference is significant at p>0.05 for infection rate.
Conclusions
The potentially serious sterility disruptive events in the operative rooms did result in an increased infection rate but not an increase in revision rate. There is no data about the rate and the impact of these events besides for perforated surgical gloves with higher reported incidences than in our study influencing infection rate if perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was not used. Ours is the first study reporting the impact of these unwanted events in the operating theatre.
Key words
orthopaedic surgery, unwanted events, revision rate
