Implant-associated infection is a major source of morbidity in orthopaedic surgery. There has been extensive research into the development of materials that prevent biofilm formation, and hence, reduce the risk of infection. Silver nanoparticle technology is receiving much interest in the field of orthopaedics for its antimicrobial properties, and the results of studies to date are encouraging. Antimicrobial effects have been seen when silver nanoparticles are used in trauma implants, tumour prostheses, bone cement, and also when combined with hydroxyapatite coatings. Although there are promising results with in vitro and in vivo studies, the number of clinical studies remains small. Future studies will be required to explore further the possible side effects associated with silver nanoparticles, to ensure their use in an effective and biocompatible manner. Here we present a review of the current literature relating to the production of nanosilver for medical use, and its orthopaedic applications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:582–9.

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

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

The aim of this study was to re-assess whether the use of a ‘one-knife technique’ can be considered as safe as the alternative practice of using separate skin and inside knives for elective orthopaedic surgery. A total of 609 knife blades from 203 elective orthopaedic operations, with equal numbers of skin, inside and control blades, were cultured using direct and enrichment media. We found 31 skin blades (15.3%), 22 inside blades (10.8%), and 13 control blades (6.4%) gave bacterial growth. Of the 31 contaminated skin blades only three (9.7%) had growth of the same organism as found on the corresponding inside blade. It is not known whether contamination of deeper layers in the remaining 90% was prevented by changing the knife after the skin incision. The organisms cultured were predominantly coagulase-negative staphylococci and proprionibacterium species; both are known to be the major culprits in peri-prosthetic infection. Our study suggests that the use of separate skin and inside knives should be maintained as good medical practice, since the cost of a single deep infection in human and financial terms can be considerable