The critical relationship between airborne microbiological contamination in an operating theatre and surgical site infection (SSI) is well known. The aim of this annotation is to explain the scientific basis of using settle plates to audit the quality of air, and to provide information about the practicalities of using them for the purposes of clinical audit. The microbiological quality of the air in most guidance is defined by volumetric sampling, but this method is difficult for surgical departments to use on a routine basis. Settle plate sampling, which mimics the mechanism of deposition of airborne microbes onto open wounds and sterile instruments, is a good alternative method of assessing the quality of the air. Current practice is not to sample the air in an operating theatre during surgery, but to rely on testing the engineering systems which deliver the clean air. This is, however, not good practice and microbiological testing should be carried out routinely during operations as part of clinical audit. Cite this article:
Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component continues to be the most common indication for revision of total hip replacements in younger patients. Early in the evolution of the cemented hip, arthroplasty surgeons switched from removal to retention of the acetabular subchondral bone plate, theorising that unfavourable mechanical forces were the cause of loosening at the bone-cement interface. It is now known that the cause of aseptic loosening is probably biological rather than mechanical and removing the subchondral bone plate may enhance biological fixation of cement to bone. With this in mind, perhaps it is time to revive removal of the subchondral bone as a standard part of acetabular preparation.
We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
