The number of arthroplasties being undertaken
is expected to grow year on year, and periprosthetic joint infections will
be an increasing socioeconomic burden. The challenge to prevent
and eradicate these infections has resulted in the emergence of
several new strategies, which are discussed in this review. Cite this article:
There has been an in increase in the availability
of effective biological agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
as well as a shift towards early diagnosis and management of the
inflammatory process. This article explores the impact this may
have on the place of orthopaedic surgery in the management of patients
with rheumatoid arthritis. Cite this article:
Peri-prosthetic infection remains a leading cause
of revision surgery. Recent publications from the American Musculoskeletal
Infection Society have sought to establish a definition of peri-prosthetic
infection based on clinical findings and laboratory investigations.
The limitations of their approach are discussed and an alternative
definition is proposed, which it is felt may better reflect the
uncertainties encountered in clinical practice.
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.
