The aim of this study was to assess the impact of Covid-19 measures on the rate of surgical site infections (SSI) and subsequent readmissions in orthopaedic patients. Retrospective, observational study in a level 1 major trauma center comparing rates of SSI in orthopaedic patients who underwent surgery prior to the Covid-19 lockdown versus that of patients who underwent surgery during the lockdown period. A total of 1151 patients were identified using electronic clinical records over two different time periods; 3 months pre Covid-19 lockdown (n=680) and 3 months during the Covid-19 lockdown (n=470). Patients were followed up for 1 year following their initial procedure. Primary outcome was readmission for SSI. Secondary outcomes were treatment received and requirement for further surgeries. The most commonly performed procedures were arthroplasty and manipulation under anaesthesia with 119 in lockdown vs 101 non-lockdown (p=0.001). The readmission rate was higher in the lockdown group with 61 (13%) vs 44 (6.5%) in the non-lockdown group (p <0.001). However, the majority were due to other surgical complications such as dislocations. Interestingly, the SSI rates were very similar with 24 (5%) in lockdown vs 28 (4%) in non-lockdown (p=0.472). Twenty patients (4.2%) required a secondary procedure for their SSI in the lockdown group vs 24 (3.5%) in non-lockdown (p=0.381). Mortality rate was similar at 44 (9.3%) in lockdown vs 61 (9.0%; p=0.836). Whilst Covid-19 precautions were associated with higher readmission rates, there was no significant difference in rate of SSI between the two groups

Orthopaedic surgical site infections (SSI's) prolong total hospital stays by a median of 2 weeks per patient, approximately double re-hospitalization rates, and increase healthcare costs by more than 300%. Patients with orthopaedic SSI's have significant reductions in their health-related quality of life. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare differences in outcomes between use of sutures and non-absorbable staples for closure of orthopaedic surgical wounds in adults. The primary outcomes were rates of superficial and deep SSI. Secondary outcomes included wound dehiscence, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction and pain during removal of closure material. Data sources including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, . clinicaltrials.gov. , National Institute for Health and Research, UK clinical trials gateway were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT's) meeting inclusion criteria. Sixteen RCT's published between 1987 and 2017 were included. Overall, wound infection outcomes (superficial and deep infections combined) showed no statistically significant difference between closure with staples compared with sutures with arelative risk of 1.17 (95% CI 0.59–2.30, p=0.66). A subgroup was performed specific to hip wound infection outcomes. Interestingly, a sensitivity analysis demonstrated sutures to be statistically favourable (p=0.04) in terms of hip wound infection outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference among secondary outcomes between sutures and staple groups. Overall it appears the choice of sutures or staples in closure of orthopaedic wounds has no effect on wound complications. However, caution is needed in applying the findings to different population groups due to heterogeneity across studies

Currently, the cement being used for hemiarthroplasties and total hip replacements by the authors and many other surgeons in the UK is Palacos® (containing 0.5g Gentamicin). Similar cement, Copal® (containing 1g Gentamicin and 1g Clindamycin) has been used in revision arthroplasties, and has shown to be better at inhibiting bacterial growth and biofilm formation. We aim to investigate the effect on SSI rates of doubling the gentamicin dose and adding a second antibiotic (clindamycin) to the bone cement in hip hemiarthroplasty. We randomised 848 consecutive patients undergoing cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured NOF at one NHS trust (two sites) into two groups: Group I, 464 patients, received standard cement (Palacos®) and Group II, 384 patients, received high dose, double antibiotic-impregnated cement (Copal®). We calculated the SSI rate for each group at 30 days post-surgery. The patients, reviewers and statistician were blinded as to treatment group. The demographics and co-morbid conditions (known to increase risk of infection) were statistically similar between the groups. The combined superficial and deep SSI rates were 5 % (20/394) and 1.7% (6/344) for groups I and II respectively (p=0.01). Group I had a deep infection rate 3.3 %(13/394) compared to 1.16% (4/344) in group II (p=0.082). Group I had a superficial infection rate 1.7 % (7/394) compared to 0.58% (2/344) in group II (p=0.1861). 33(4%) patients were lost to follow up, and 77 (9%) patients were deceased at the 30 day end point. There was no statistical difference in the 30 day mortality, C. difficile infection, or the renal failure rates between the two groups. Using high dose double antibiotic-impregnated cement rather than standard low dose antibiotic-impregnated cement significantly reduced the SSI rate (1.7% vs 5%; p=0.01) after hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur in this prospective randomised controlled trial

Objectives

To review the current best surgical practice and detail a multi-disciplinary approach that could further reduce joint replacement infection.

Objectives

The period of post-operative treatment before surgical wounds are completely closed remains a key window, during which one can apply new technologies that can minimise complications. One such technology is the use of negative pressure wound therapy to manage and accelerate healing of the closed incisional wound (incisional NPWT).