Aims. The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between pre- and postoperative opioid use among patients undergoing common elective orthopaedic procedures. Patients and Methods. Pre- and postoperative opioid use were studied among patients from a national insurance database undergoing seven common orthopaedic procedures using univariate log-rank tests and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results. A total of 98 769 patients were included; 35 701 patients were opioid-naïve, 11 621 used opioids continuously for six months before surgery, and 4558 used opioids continuously for at least six months but did not obtain any prescriptions in the three months before surgery. Among opioid-naïve patients, between 0.76% and 4.53% used opioids chronically postoperatively. Among chronic preoperative users, between 42% and 62% ceased chronic opioids postoperatively. A three-month opioid-free period preoperatively led to a rate of cessation of chronic opioid use between 82% and 93%, as compared with between 31% and 50% with continuous preoperative use (p < 0.001 for significant changes in opioid use before and after surgery in each procedure). Between 5.6 and 20.0 preoperative chronic users ceased chronic use for every new chronic opioid user. Risk factors for chronic postoperative use included chronic preoperative opioid use (odds ratio (OR) 4.84 to 39.75; p < 0.0001) and depression (OR 1.14 to 1.55; p < 0.05 except total hip arthroplasty). With a three-month opioid-free period before surgery, chronic preoperative opioids elevated the risk of chronic opioid use only mildly, if at all (OR 0.47 to 1.75; p < 0.05 for total shoulder arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, and carpal tunnel release). Conclusion. Chronic preoperative opioid use increases the risk of chronic postoperative use, but an opioid-free period before surgery decreases this risk compared with continuous preoperative use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1570–1577

Aims

The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway.

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 aim of this study was to re-assess whether the use of a ‘one-knife technique’ can be considered as safe as the alternative practice of using separate skin and inside knives for elective orthopaedic surgery. A total of 609 knife blades from 203 elective orthopaedic operations, with equal numbers of skin, inside and control blades, were cultured using direct and enrichment media. We found 31 skin blades (15.3%), 22 inside blades (10.8%), and 13 control blades (6.4%) gave bacterial growth.

Of the 31 contaminated skin blades only three (9.7%) had growth of the same organism as found on the corresponding inside blade. It is not known whether contamination of deeper layers in the remaining 90% was prevented by changing the knife after the skin incision. The organisms cultured were predominantly coagulase-negative staphylococci and proprionibacterium species; both are known to be the major culprits in peri-prosthetic infection. Our study suggests that the use of separate skin and inside knives should be maintained as good medical practice, since the cost of a single deep infection in human and financial terms can be considerable.

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 conducted a randomised, controlled trial to determine whether changing gloves at specified intervals can reduce the incidence of glove perforation and contamination in total hip arthroplasty. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. In the study group (25 patients), gloves were changed at 20-minute intervals or prior to cementation. In the control group (25 patients), gloves were changed prior to cementation. In addition, gloves were changed in both groups whenever there was a visible puncture. Only outer gloves were investigated.

Contamination was tested by impression of gloved fingers on blood agar and culture plates were subsequently incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The number of colonies and types of organisms were recorded. Glove perforation was assessed using the water test. The incidence of perforation and contamination was significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group. Changing gloves at regular intervals is an effective way to decrease the incidence of glove perforation and bacterial contamination during total hip arthroplasty.