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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This prospective five-year study analyses the impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on an Irish orthopaedic unit. We identified 318 cases of MRSA, representing 0.76% of all admissions (41 971). A total of 240 (76%) cases were colonised with MRSA, while 120 (37.7%) were infected. Patients were admitted from home (218; 68.6%), nursing homes (72; 22.6%) and other hospitals (28; 8.8%). A total of 115 cases (36.6%) were colonised or infected on admission. Many patients were both colonised and infected at some stage. The length of hospital stay was almost trebled because of the presence of MRSA infection.

Encouragingly, overall infection rates have not risen significantly over the five years of the study despite increased prevalence of MRSA. However, the financial burden of MRSA is increasing, highlighting the need for progress in understanding how to control this resistant pathogen more effectively.

The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service established the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme in order to standardise the collection of information about infections acquired in hospital in the United Kingdom and provide national data with which hospitals could measure their own performance. The definition of superficial incisional infection (skin and subcutaneous tissue), set by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), should meet at least one of the defined criteria which would confirm the diagnosis and determine the need for specific treatment.

We have assessed the interobserver reliability of the criteria for superficial incisional infection set by the CDC in our current practice. The incisional site of 50 patients who had an elective primary arthroplasty of the hip or knee was evaluated independently by two orthopaedic clinical research fellows and two orthopaedic ward sisters for the presence or absence of surgical-site infection. Interobserver reliability was assessed by comparison of the criteria for wound infection used by the four observers using kappa reliability coefficients. Our study demonstrated that some of the components of the current CDC criteria were unreliable and we recommend their revision.

Antibiotic prophylaxis is routinely administered during joint replacement surgery and may predispose patients to Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD). The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence of this following joint replacement, using a cefuroxime-based regimen. Patients developing CDAD were compared with a control group of patients without CDAD. The incidence of the former was 1.7 per 1000 primary joint replacements. Those patients prescribed additional antibiotics had a higher incidence of CDAD (p = 0.047), but there was no difference between the two groups in relation to the use of gastroprotective agents (p = 0.703). A trial of a new prophylaxis regimen would require 43 198 patients in each arm to show a reduction of one case per 1000 procedures. Cefuroxime-based antibiotic prophylaxis is safe in patients undergoing primary elective joint replacement.

Infection remains a significant and common complication after joint replacement and there is debate about which contributing factors are important. Few studies have investigated the effect of the operating time on infection.

We collected data prospectively from 5277 hip and knee replacements which included the type of procedure, the operating time, the use of drains, the operating theatre, surgeon, age and gender. In a subgroup of 3449 knee replacements further analysis was carried out using the tourniquet time in place of the operating time. These variables were assessed by the use of generalised linear modelling against superficial, deep or joint-space post-operative infection as defined by the Australian Surgical-Site Infection criteria.

The overall infection rate was 0.98%. In the replacement data set both male gender (z = 3.097, p = 0.00195) and prolonged operating time (z = 4.325, p < 0.001) were predictive of infection. In the knee subgroup male gender (z = 2.250, p = 0.02447), a longer tourniquet time (z = 2.867, p = 0.00414) and total knee replacement (versus unicompartmental knee replacement) (z = −2.052, p = 0.0420) were predictive of infection.

These findings support the view that a prolonged operating time and male gender are associated with an increased incidence of infection. Steps to minimise intra-operative delay should be instigated, and care should be exercised when introducing measures which prolong the duration of joint replacement.

We have evaluated the extent to which diabetes affects the revision rate following total hip replacement (THR). Through the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry we identified all patients undergoing a primary THR (n = 57 575) between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2005, of whom 3278 had diabetes. The presence of diabetes among these patients was identified through the Danish National Registry of Patients and the Danish National Drug Prescription Database. We estimated the relative risk for revision and the 95% confidence intervals for patients with diabetes compared to those without, adjusting for the confounding factors. Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of revision due to deep infection (relative risk = 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.09), particularly in those with type 2 diabetes (relative risk = 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.18)), those with diabetes for less than five years prior to THR (relative risk = 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.24 to 2.32)), those with complications due to diabetes (relative risk = 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.41 to 3.17)), and those with cardiovascular comorbidities prior to surgery (relative risk = 2.35 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 3.98)).

Patients and surgeons should be aware of the relatively elevated risk of revision due to deep infection following THR in diabetes particularly in those with insufficient control of their glucose level.

Due to economic constraints, it has been suggested that joint replacement patients can be followed up in primary care. There are clinical, ethical and academic reasons why we must ensure that our joint replacements are appropriately clinically and radiologically followed up to minimise complications. This Editorial discusses this.

We reviewed 231 patients who had undergone total knee replacement with an AGC (Biomet) implant over a period of 2.5 years. After applying exclusion criteria and with some loss to follow-up, there were 144 patients available for study. These were divided into two groups; those who had received intra-articular steroid in the 11 months before surgery and those who had not.

There were three deep infections, all of which occurred in patients who had received a steroid injection. The incidence of superficial infection was not significantly different in the two groups. Five patients had undergone investigation for suspected deep infection because of persistent swelling or pain and all of these had received an intra-articular injection pre-operatively. We conclude that the decision to administer intra-articular steroids to a patient who may be a candidate for total knee replacement should not be taken lightly because of a risk of post-operative deep infection.