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 Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service established the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme in order to standardise the collection of information about infections acquired in hospital in the United Kingdom and provide national data with which hospitals could measure their own performance. The definition of superficial incisional infection (skin and subcutaneous tissue), set by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), should meet at least one of the defined criteria which would confirm the diagnosis and determine the need for specific treatment. We have assessed the interobserver reliability of the criteria for superficial incisional infection set by the CDC in our current practice. The incisional site of 50 patients who had an elective primary arthroplasty of the hip or knee was evaluated independently by two orthopaedic clinical research fellows and two orthopaedic ward sisters for the presence or absence of surgical-site infection. Interobserver reliability was assessed by comparison of the criteria for wound infection used by the four observers using kappa reliability coefficients. Our study demonstrated that some of the components of the current CDC criteria were unreliable and we recommend their revision

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.

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.

This prospective five-year study analyses the impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on an Irish orthopaedic unit. We identified 318 cases of MRSA, representing 0.76% of all admissions (41 971). A total of 240 (76%) cases were colonised with MRSA, while 120 (37.7%) were infected. Patients were admitted from home (218; 68.6%), nursing homes (72; 22.6%) and other hospitals (28; 8.8%). A total of 115 cases (36.6%) were colonised or infected on admission. Many patients were both colonised and infected at some stage. The length of hospital stay was almost trebled because of the presence of MRSA infection.

Encouragingly, overall infection rates have not risen significantly over the five years of the study despite increased prevalence of MRSA. However, the financial burden of MRSA is increasing, highlighting the need for progress in understanding how to control this resistant pathogen more effectively.

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.

National guidelines state that in patients undergoing operations the site of the procedure should be marked. In clinical practice the same marker is used repeatedly. We are not aware of any investigation regarding the theoretical risk of transferring organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aureus (MRSA) between patients by a skin marker.

In an experimental setting, Penflex and Viomedex skin markers were tested 30 times each after contaminating them with a standard inoculum of MRSA. The survival of the organism on the tip of the markers was assessed by culture on MRSA-indicator nutrient agar plates at 0, 5, 15 and 60 minutes, 24 and 48 hours and at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after contamination.

There was a significant difference between the markers, with the Penflex showing no survival of MRSA after 15 minutes whereas the Viomedex product continued to produce MRSA cultures for up to three weeks.