Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances, such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques, infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons and inflicts suffering on patients.

The medical community has implemented many practices with the intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation. Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection.

This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1450–2.

Things have not been quiet in the Cochrane Collaboration in the four months since the last 'Cochrane Corner', with the publication of six new or updated reviews summarised here, all conducted with the bulletproof Collaboration's methodology representing the pinnacle of evidence relevant to orthopaedic surgeons.

The August 2013 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: passive smoking and bone substitutes; platelet-rich plasma and osteogenesis; plantar fasciitis and platelet-rich plasma: a match made in heaven?; MRSA decolonisation decreases infection rates; gums, bisphosphonates and orthopaedics; PRAISE and partner violence; blunt impact and post-traumatic OA; and IDEAL research and implants

Objectives

The period of post-operative treatment before surgical wounds are completely closed remains a key window, during which one can apply new technologies that can minimise complications. One such technology is the use of negative pressure wound therapy to manage and accelerate healing of the closed incisional wound (incisional NPWT).

We wished to estimate the incidence of surgical-site infection (SSI) after total hip replacement (THR) and hemiarthroplasty and its strength of association with major risk factors. The SSI surveillance service prospectively gathered clinical, operative and infection data on inpatients from 102 hospitals in England during a four-year period.

The overall incidence of SSI was 2.23% for 16 291 THRs, 4.97% for 5769 hemiarthroplasty procedures, 3.68% for 2550 revision THRs and 7.6% for 198 revision hemiarthroplasties. Staphylococcus aureus was identified in 50% of SSIs; 59% of these isolates were methicillin-resistant (MRSA). In the single variable analysis of THRs, age, female gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, trauma, duration of operation and pre-operative stay were significantly associated with the risk of SSI (p < 0.05). For hemiarthroplasty, the ASA score and age were significant factors. In revision THRs male gender, ASA score, trauma, wound class, duration of operation and pre-operative stay were significant risk factors. The median time to detection of SSI was eight days for superficial incisional, 11 days for deep incisional and 11 days for joint/bone infections. For each procedure the mean length of stay doubled for patients with SSI. The multivariate analysis identified age group, trauma, duration of operation and ASA score as significant, independent risk factors for SSI. There was significant interhospital variation in the rates of SSI. MRSA was the most common pathogen to cause SSI in hip arthroplasty, especially in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty, but coagulase-negative Staph. aureus may be more important in deep infections involving the joint.

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of pre-operative skin antisepsis and cleansing techniques in reducing foot and ankle skin flora. The post-preparation culture number (Post-PCN) was the primary outcome. The data were evaluated using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We identified eight trials (560 participants, 716 feet) that met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in the proportions of Post-PCN between hallux nailfold (HNF) and toe web spaces (TWS) sites: 0.47 vs 0.22, respectively (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.182937 to 0.304097; p < 0.0001).

Meta-analyses showed that alcoholic chlorhexidine had better efficacy than alcoholic povidone-iodine (PI) at HNF sites (risk difference 0.19 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30); p = 0.0005); a two-step intervention using PI scrub and paint (S& P) followed by alcohol showed significantly better efficacy over PI (S& P) alone at TWS sites (risk difference 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.24); p = 0.0169); and a two-step intervention using chlorhexidine scrub followed by alcohol showed significantly better efficacy over PI (S& P) alone at the combined (HNF with TWS) sites (risk difference 0.27 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.40); p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between cleansing techniques.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:498–503.

We have investigated whether the use of laminar-flow theatres and space suits reduced the rate of revision for early deep infection after total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement by reviewing the results of the New Zealand Joint Registry at ten years.

Of the 51 485 primary THRs and 36 826 primary TKRs analysed, laminar-flow theatres were used in 35.5% and space suits in 23.5%. For THR there was a significant increase in early infection in those procedures performed with the use of a space suit compared with those without (p < 0.0001), in those carried out in a laminar-flow theatre compared with a conventional theatre (p < 0.003) and in those undertaken in a laminar-flow theatre with a space suit (p < 0.001) when compared with conventional theatres without such a suit. The results were similar for TKR with the use of a space suit (p < 0.001), in laminar-flow theatres (p < 0.019) and when space suits were used in those theatres (p < 0.001). These findings were independent of age, disease and operating time and were unchanged when the surgeons and hospital were analysed individually.

The rate of revision for early deep infection has not been reduced by using laminar flow and space suits. Our results question the rationale for their increasing use in routine joint replacement, where the added cost to the health system seems to be unjustified.

In this paper, we consider wound healing after total knee arthroplasty.

We evaluated the cost and consequences of proximal femoral fractures requiring further surgery because of complications. The data were collected prospectively in a standard manner from all patients with a proximal femoral fracture presenting to the trauma unit at the John Radcliffe Hospital over a five-year period. The total cost of treatment for each patient was calculated by separating it into its various components. The risk factors for the complications that arose, the location of their discharge and the mortality rates for these patients were compared to those of a matched control group. There were 2360 proximal femoral fractures in 2257 patients, of which 144 (6.1%) required further surgery. The mean cost of treatment in patients with complications was £18 709 (£2606.30 to £60.827.10), compared with £8610 (£918.54 to £45 601.30) for uncomplicated cases (p < 0.01), with a mean length of stay of 62.8 (44.5 to 79.3) and 32.7 (23.8 to 35.0) days, respectively. The probability of mortality after one month in these cases was significantly higher than in the control group, with a mean survival of 209 days, compared with 496 days for the controls. Patients with complications were statistically less likely to return to their own home (p < 0.01).

Greater awareness and understanding are required to minimise the complications of proximal femoral fractures and consequently their cost.

Using general practitioner records and hospital notes and through direct telephone conversation with patients, we investigated the accuracy of nine patient-reported complications gathered from a self-completed questionnaire after elective joint replacement surgery of the hip and knee. A total of 402 post-discharge complications were reported after 8546 elective operations that were undertaken within a three-year period. These were reported by 136 men and 240 women with a mean age of 71.8 years (34 to 93). A total of 319 reported complications (79.4%; 95% confidence interval 75.4 to 83.3) were confirmed to be correct. High rates of correct reporting were demonstrated for infection (94.5%) and the need for further surgery (100%), whereas the rates of reporting deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction and stroke were lower (75% to 84.2%). Dislocation, peri-prosthetic fractures and nerve palsy had modest rates of correct reporting (36% to 57.1%). More patients who had knee surgery delivered incorrect reports of dislocation (p = 0.001) and DVT (p = 0.013).

Despite these variations, it appears that post-operative complications may form part of a larger patient-reported outcome programme after elective joint replacement surgery.

This review summarises the opinions and conclusions reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR) held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised, and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or osteitis.

It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.

An international faculty of orthopaedic surgeons presented their work on the current challenges in hip surgery at the London Hip Meeting which was attended by over 400 delegates. The topics covered included femoroacetabular impingement, thromboembolic phenomena associated with hip surgery, bearing surfaces (including metal-on-metal articulations), outcomes of hip replacement surgery and revision hip replacement. We present a concise report of the current opinions on hip surgery from this meeting with appropriate references to the current literature.

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.

Prospective data on hip fracture from 3686 patients at a United Kingdom teaching hospital were analysed to investigate the risk factors, financial costs and outcomes associated with deep or superficial wound infections after hip fracture surgery.

In 1.2% (41) of patients a deep wound infection developed, and 1.1% (39) had a superficial wound infection. A total of 57 of 80 infections (71.3%) were due to Staphylococcus aureus and 39 (48.8%) were due to MRSA.

No statistically significant pre-operative risk factors were detected. Length of stay, cost of treatment and pre-discharge mortality all significantly increased with deep wound infection. The one-year mortality was 30%, and this increased to 50% in those who developed an infection (p < 0.001). A deep infection resulted in doubled operative costs, tripled investigation costs and quadrupled ward costs.

MRSA infection increased costs, length of stay, and pre-discharge mortality compared with non-MRSA infection.

Prospective data on 6905 consecutive hip fracture patients at a district general hospital were analysed to identify the risk factors for the development of deep infection post-operatively. The main outcome measure was infection beneath the fascia lata.

A total of 50 patients (0.7%) had deep infection. Operations by consultants or a specialist hip fracture surgeon had half the rate of deep infection compared with junior grades (p = 0.01). Increased duration of anaesthesia was significantly associated with deep infection (p = 0.01). The method of fracture fixation was also significant. Intracapsular fractures treated with a hemiarthroplasty had seven times the rate of deep infection compared with those treated by internal fixation (p = 0.001). Extracapsular fractures treated with an extramedullary device had a deep infection rate of 0.78% compared with 0% for those treated with intramedullary devices (p = 0.02).

The management of hip fracture patients by a specialist hip fracture surgeon using appropriate fixation could significantly reduce the rate of deep infection and associated morbidity, along with extended hospitalisation and associated costs.

With the established success of the National Joint Registry and the emergence of a range of new national initiatives for the capture of electronic data in the National Health Service, orthopaedic surgery in the United Kingdom has found itself thrust to the forefront of an information revolution. In this review we consider the benefits and threats that this revolution poses, and how orthopaedic surgeons should marshal their resources to ensure that this is a force for good.

More than a million hip replacements are carried out each year worldwide, and the number of other artificial joints inserted is also rising, so that infections associated with arthroplasties have become more common. However, there is a paucity of literature on infections due to haematogenous seeding following dental procedures. We reviewed the published literature to establish the current knowledge on this problem and to determine the evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to a dental procedure.

We found that antimicrobial prophylaxis before dental interventions in patients with artificial joints lacks evidence-based information and thus cannot be universally recommended.