Aims

The aim of this study is to determine the effects of the UK lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on the orthopaedic admissions, operations, training opportunities, and theatre efficiency in a large district general hospital.

Aims. This study aimed to assess the performance of an automated multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) technique for rapid diagnosis of native joint septic arthritis. Patients and Methods. Consecutive patients with suspected septic arthritis undergoing aseptic diagnostic joint aspiration were included. The aspirate was used for analysis by mPCR and conventional microbiological analysis. A joint was classed as septic according to modified Newman criteria. Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) values of the mPCR and the synovial fluid culture were compared using the z-test. A total of 72 out of 76 consecutive patients (33 women, 39 men; mean age 64 years (22 to 92)) with suspected septic arthritis were included in this study. Results. Of 72 patients, 42 (58%) were deemed to have septic joints. The sensitivity of mPCR and synovial fluid culture was 38% and 29%, respectively. No significant differences were found between the AUCs of both techniques (p = 0.138). A strong concordance of 89% (Cohen’s kappa: 0.65) was shown. The mPCR failed to detect Staphylococcus aureus (n = 1) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 1; no primer included in the mPCR), whereas the synovial fluid culture missed six microorganisms (positive mPCR: S. aureus (n = 2), Cutibacterium acnes (n = 3), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 2)). Conclusion. The automated mPCR showed at least a similar performance to the synovial fluid culture (the current benchmark) in diagnosing septic arthritis, having the great advantage of a shorter turnaround time (within five hours). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:288–296

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.