Aims. The importance of accurate identification and reporting of surgical site infection (SSI) is well recognised but poorly defined. Public Health England (PHE) mandated collection of orthopaedic SSI data in 2004. Data submission is required in one of four categories (hip prosthesis, knee prosthesis, repair of neck of femur, reduction of long bone fracture) for one quarter per year. Trusts are encouraged to carry out post-discharge surveillance but this is not mandatory. Recent papers in the orthopaedic literature have highlighted the importance of SSI surveillance and the heterogeneity of surveillance methods. However, details of current orthopaedic SSI surveillance practice has not been described or quantified. Patients and Methods. All 147 NHS trusts in England were audited using a structured questionnaire. Data was collected in the following categories: data collection; data submission to PHE; definitions used; resource constraints; post-discharge surveillance and SSI rates in the four PHE categories. The response rate was 87.7%. Results. Variation in practice was clear in all categories in terms of methods and timings of data collection and data submission. There was little agreement on SSI definitions. At least six different definitions were used, some trusts using more than one definition. Post-discharge surveillance was carried out by 62% of respondents but there was again variation in both the methods and staff used. More than half of the respondents felt that SSI surveillance in their unit was limited by resource constraints. SSI rates ranged from 0% to 10%. Conclusion. This paper quantifies the heterogeneity of SSI surveillance in England. It highlights the importance of adequate resourcing and the unreliability of relying on voluntary data collection and submission. Conformity of definitions and methods are recommended to enable meaningful SSI data to be collated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:171–4

Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be effective in reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion after joint replacement. Recently, there has been interest in applying it topically before the closure of surgical wounds. This has the advantages of ease of application, maximum concentration at the site of bleeding, minimising its systemic absorption and, consequently, concerns about possible side-effects.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 14 randomised controlled trials (11 in knee replacement, two in hip replacement and one in both) which investigated the effect of topical TXA on blood loss and rates of transfusion. Topical TXA significantly reduced the rate of blood transfusion (total knee replacement: risk ratio (RR) 4.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.02 to 6.72; p < 0.001 (nine trials, I² = 0%); total hip replacement: RR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.32 to 4.97, p = 0.004 (one trial)). The rate of thromboembolic events with topical TXA were similar to those found with a placebo. Indirect comparison of placebo-controlled trials of topical and intravenous TXA indicates that topical administration is superior to the intravenous route.

In conclusion, topical TXA is an effective and safe method of reducing the need for blood transfusion after total knee and hip replacement. Further research is required to find its optimum dose for topical use.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1005–15.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively. We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice