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

Fresh-frozen allograft bone is frequently used in orthopaedic surgery. We investigated the incidence of allograft-related infection and analysed the outcomes of recipients of bacterial culture-positive allografts from our single-institute bone bank during bone transplantation. The fresh-frozen allografts were harvested in a strict sterile environment during total joint arthroplasty surgery and immediately stored in a freezer at -78º to -68º C after packing. Between January 2007 and December 2012, 2024 patients received 2083 allografts with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The overall allograft-associated infection rate was 1.2% (24/2024). Swab cultures of 2083 allografts taken before implantation revealed 21 (1.0%) positive findings. The 21 recipients were given various antibiotics at the individual orthopaedic surgeon’s discretion. At the latest follow-up, none of these 21 recipients displayed clinical signs of infection following treatment. Based on these findings, we conclude that an incidental positive culture finding for allografts does not correlate with subsequent surgical site infection. Additional prolonged post-operative antibiotic therapy may not be necessary for recipients of fresh-frozen bone allograft with positive culture findings.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:427–31.

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.

Post-discharge surveillance of surgical site infection is necessary if accurate rates of infection following surgery are to be available. We undertook a prospective study of 376 knee and hip replacements in 366 patients in order to estimate the rate of orthopaedic surgical site infection in the community. The inpatient infection was 3.1% and the post-discharge infection rate was 2.1%. We concluded that the use of telephone interviews of patients to identify the group at highest risk of having a surgical site infection (those who think they have an infection) with rapid follow-up by a professional trained to diagnose infection according to agreed criteria is an effective method of identifying infection after discharge from hospital.

The Control of Infection Committee at a specialist orthopaedic hospital prospectively collected data on all episodes of bacteriologically-proven deep infection arising after primary hip and knee replacements over a 15-year period from 1987 to 2001.

There were 10 735 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement. In 34 of 5947 hip replacements (0.57%) and 41 of 4788 knee replacements (0.86%) a deep infection developed. The most common infecting micro-organism was coagulase-negative staphylococcus, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci and streptococci. Of the infecting organisms, 72% were sensitive to routine prophylactic antimicrobial agents.

Of the infections, 29% (22) arose in the first three months following surgery, 35% between three months and one year (26), and 36% (27) after one year. Most cases were detected early and treated aggressively, with eradication of the infection in 96% (72). There was no significant change in the infection rate or type of infecting micro-organism over the course of this study.

These results set a benchmark, and importantly emphasise that only 64% of peri-prosthetic infections arise within one year of surgery. These results also illustrate the advantages of conducting joint replacement surgery in the isolation of a specialist hospital.