Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 1 | Pages 79 - 84
1 Jan 2018
Tsang STJ McHugh MP Guerendiain D Gwynne PJ Boyd J Simpson AHRW Walsh TS Laurenson IF Templeton KE

Objectives. Nasal carriers of Staphylococcus (S.) aureus (MRSA and MSSA) have an increased risk for healthcare-associated infections. There are currently limited national screening policies for the detection of S. aureus despite the World Health Organization’s recommendations. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of molecular and culture techniques in S. aureus screening, determine the cause of any discrepancy between the diagnostic techniques, and model the potential effect of different diagnostic techniques on S. aureus detection in orthopaedic patients. Methods. Paired nasal swabs for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay and culture of S. aureus were collected from a study population of 273 orthopaedic outpatients due to undergo joint arthroplasty surgery. Results. The prevalence of MSSA nasal colonization was found to be between 22.4% to 35.6%. The current standard direct culturing methods for detecting S. aureus significantly underestimated the prevalence (p = 0.005), failing to identify its presence in approximately one-third of patients undergoing joint arthroplasty surgery. Conclusion. Modelling these results to national surveillance data, it was estimated that approximately 5000 to 8000 S. aureus surgical site infections could be prevented, and approximately $140 million to $950 million (approximately £110 million to £760 million) saved in treatment costs annually in the United States and United Kingdom combined, by using alternative diagnostic methods to direct culture in preoperative S. aureus screening and eradication programmes. Cite this article: S. T. J. Tsang, M. P. McHugh, D. Guerendiain, P. J. Gwynne, J. Boyd, A. H. R. W. Simpson, T. S. Walsh, I. F. Laurenson, K. E. Templeton. Underestimation of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA and MSSA) carriage associated with standard culturing techniques: One third of carriers missed. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:79–84. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0175.R1


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 8, Issue 5 | Pages 199 - 206
1 May 2019
Romanò CL Tsuchiya H Morelli I Battaglia AG Drago L

Implant-related infection is one of the leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma, and results in high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have proven to be safe and effective both in preclinical and clinical studies, with post-surgical implant-related infections reduced by 90% in some cases, depending on the type of coating and experimental setup used. Economic assessment may enable the cost-to-benefit profile of any given antibacterial coating to be defined, based on the expected infection rate with and without the coating, the cost of the infection management, and the cost of the coating. After reviewing the latest evidence on the available antibacterial coatings, we quantified the impact caused by delaying their large-scale application. Considering only joint arthroplasties, our calculations indicated that for an antibacterial coating, with a final user’s cost price of €600 and able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80%, each year of delay to its large-scale application would cause an estimated 35 200 new cases of post-surgical infection in Europe, equating to additional hospital costs of approximately €440 million per year. An adequate reimbursement policy for antibacterial coatings may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research, as could faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for the technologies still in the pipeline. This could significantly reduce the social and economic burden of implant-related infections in orthopaedics and trauma. Cite this article: C. L. Romanò, H. Tsuchiya, I. Morelli, A. G. Battaglia, L. Drago. Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:199–206. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.85.BJR-2018-0316