Staphylococcus aureus is one of the leading causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Over the past decade there has been an increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This is a subpopulation of the bacterium with unique resistance and virulence characteristics. Nasal colonisation with either S. aureus or MRSA has been demonstrated to be an important independent risk factor associated with the increasing incidence and severity of SSI after orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, there is an economic burden related to SSI following orthopaedic surgery, with MRSA-associated SSI leading to longer hospital stays and increased hospital costs. Although there is some controversy about the effectiveness of screening and eradication programmes, the literature suggests that patients should be screened and MRSA-positive patients treated before surgical admission in order to reduce the risk of SSI.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:4–9.

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of screening and successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation in elective orthopaedic patients on the subsequent risk of developing a surgical site infection (SSI) with MRSA.

We screened 5933 elective orthopaedic in-patients for MRSA at pre-operative assessment. Of these, 108 (1.8%) were colonised with MRSA and 90 subsequently underwent surgery. Despite effective eradication therapy, six of these (6.7%) had an SSI within one year of surgery. Among these infections, deep sepsis occurred in four cases (4.4%) and superficial infection in two (2.2%). The responsible organism in four of the six cases was MRSA. Further analysis showed that patients undergoing surgery for joint replacement of the lower limb were at significantly increased risk of an SSI if previously colonised with MRSA.

We conclude that previously MRSA-colonised patients undergoing elective surgery are at an increased risk of an SSI compared with other elective patients, and that this risk is significant for those undergoing joint replacement of the lower limb. Furthermore, when an infection occurs, it is likely to be due to MRSA.

We have conducted a case-control study over a period of ten years comparing both deep infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and colonised cases with a control group.

Risk factors associated with deep infection were vascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, admission to a high-dependency or an intensive-care unit and open wounds. Those for colonisation were institutional care, vascular diseases and dementia. Older age was a risk factor for any MRSA infection. The length of hospital stay was dramatically increased by deep infection.

These risk factors are useful in identifying higher-risk patients who may be more susceptible to MRSA infection. A strategy of early identification and isolation may help to control its spread in trauma units.

We examined the rates of infection and colonisation by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) between January 2003 and May 2004 in order to assess the impact of the introduction of an MRSA policy in October 2003, which required all admissions to be screened. Emergency admissions were treated prophylactically and elective beds ring-fenced. A total of 5594 admissions were cross-referenced with 22 810 microbiology results. The morbidity, mortality and cost of managing MRSA-carrying patients, with a proximal fracture of the femur were compared, in relation to age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade and residential status, with a group of matched controls who were MRSA-negative.

In 2004, we screened 1795 of 1796 elective admissions and MRSA was found in 23 (1.3%). We also screened 1122 of 1447 trauma admissions and 43 (3.8%) were carrying MRSA. All ten ward transfers were screened and four (40%) were carriers (all p < 0.001). The incidence of MRSA in trauma patients increased by 2.6% per week of inpatient stay (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). MRSA developed in 2.9% of trauma and 0.2% of elective patients during that admission (p < 0.001). The implementation of the MRSA policy reduced the incidence of MRSA infection by 56% in trauma patients (1.57% in 2003 (17 of 1084) to 0.69% in 2004 (10 of 1447), p = 0.035). Infection with MRSA in elective patients was reduced by 70% (0.56% in 2003 (7 of 1257) to 0.17% in 2004 (3 of 1806), p = 0.06). The cost of preventing one MRSA infection was £3200.

Although colonisation by MRSA did not affect the mortality rate, infection by MRSA more than doubled it. Patients with proximal fractures of the femur infected with MRSA remained in hospital for 50 extra days, had 19 more days of vancomycin treatment and 26 more days of vacuum-assisted closure therapy than the matched controls. These additional costs equated to £13 972 per patient.

From this experience we have been able to describe the epidemiology of MRSA, assess the impact of infection-control measures on MRSA infection rates and determine the morbidity, mortality and economic cost of MRSA carriage on trauma and elective orthopaedic wards.