Aims. The interaction between surgical lighting and laminar airflow is poorly understood. We undertook an experiment to identify any effect contemporary surgical lights have on laminar flow and recommend practical strategies to limit any negative effects. Materials and Methods. Neutrally buoyant bubbles were introduced into the surgical field of a simulated setup for a routine total knee arthroplasty in a laminar flow theatre. Patterns of airflow were observed and the number of bubbles remaining above the surgical field over time identified. Five different lighting configurations were assessed. Data were analysed using simple linear regression after logarithmic transformation. Results. In the absence of surgical lights, laminar airflow was observed, bubbles were cleared rapidly and did not accumulate. If lights were placed above the surgical field laminar airflow was abolished and bubbles rose from the surgical field to the lights then circulated back to the surgical field. The value of the decay parameter (slope) of the two setups differed significantly; no light (b = -1.589) versus one light (b = -0.1273, p < 0.001). Two lights touching (b = -0.1191) above the surgical field had a similar effect to that of a single light (p = 0. 2719). Two lights positioned by arms outstretched had a similar effect (b = -0.1204) to two lights touching (p = 0.998) and one light (p = 0.444). When lights were separated widely (160 cm), laminar airflow was observed but the rate of clearance of the bubbles remained slower (b = -1.1165) than with no lights present (p = 0.004). . Conclusion. Surgical lights have a significantly negative effect on laminar airflow. Lights should be positioned as far away as practicable from the surgical field to limit this effect. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1061–6

We have investigated the contaminating bacteria in primary hip arthroplasty and their sensitivity to the prophylactic antibiotics currently in use. Impressions (627) of the gloved hands of the surgical team in 50 total hip arthroplasties were obtained on blood agar. The gloves were changed after draping, at intervals of 20 minutes thereafter, and before using cement. Changes were also undertaken whenever a visible puncture was detected. The culture plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. Isolates were identified and tested for sensitivity to flucloxacillin, which is a recognised indicator of sensitivity to cefuroxime. They were also tested against other agents depending upon their appearance on Gram staining.

We found contamination in 57 (9%) impressions and 106 bacterial isolates. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were seen most frequently (68.9%), but we also isolated Micrococcus (12.3%), diphtheroids (9.4%), Staphylococcus aureus (6.6%) and Escherichia coli (0.9%). Of the coagulase-negative staphylococci, only 52.1% were sensitive to flucloxacillin and therefore to cefuroxime. We believe that it is now appropriate to review the relevance of prophylaxis with cefuroxime and to consider the use of other agents.

Patients who have undergone total hip or knee replacement (THR and TKR, respectively) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We aimed to determine the time courses of both the incidence of venous thromboembolism and effective prophylaxis. Patients with elective primary THR and TKR were enrolled in the multi-national Global Orthopaedic Registry. Data on the incidence of venous thromboembolism and prophylaxis were collected from 6639 THR and 8326 TKR patients.

The cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism within three months of surgery was 1.7% in the THR and 2.3% in the TKR patients. The mean times to venous thromboembolism were 21.5 days (sd 22.5) for THR, and 9.7 days (sd 14.1) for TKR. It occurred after the median time to discharge in 75% of the THR and 57% of the TKA patients who developed venous thromboembolism. Of those who received recommended forms of prophylaxis, approximately one-quarter (26% of THR and 27% of TKR patients) were not receiving it seven days after surgery, the minimum duration recommended at the time of the study.

The risk of venous thromboembolism extends beyond the usual period of hospitalisation, while the duration of prophylaxis is often shorter than this. Practices should be re-assessed to ensure that patients receive appropriate durations of prophylaxis.