The aim of this study was to determine if a change in antibiotic prophylaxis for routine hip and knee replacement was associated with an increased risk of acute renal impairment.

We identified 238 patients (128 knees and 110 hips) who had received a single prophylactic dose of 1.5 g cefuroxime before joint replacement. We compared them with prospectively collected data from 254 patients (117 knees and 137 hips) who received a single prophylactic dose of 2 g flucloxacillin and a height- and gender-determined dose of gentamicin. The primary outcome measure was any new renal impairment as graded by clinically validated criteria.

We identified four patients (1.69%) in the cefuroxime group who developed renal impairment. All four had mild impairment and all renal function was normal by the third post-operative day. The incidence of new-onset renal impairment was significantly higher in the flucloxacillin-and-gentamicin group at 9.45% (24 patients) (p < 0.001). Three of these patients remained with acute renal impairment after a week, although the serum creatinine levels in all subsequently returned to normal.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:395–8.

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.

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 December 2013 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Re-operation for intertrochanteric hip fractures; Are twin incisions better than one round the acetabulum?; Salvage osteotomy for calcaneal fractures; Posterior dislocation; Should MRSA be covered in open fractures?; Characterising the saline load test; Has it healed: hip fractures under the spotlight; and stem cells present in atrophic non-union.

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.

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.

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 conducted a case-control study over a period of ten years comparing both deep infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and colonised cases with a control group.

Risk factors associated with deep infection were vascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, admission to a high-dependency or an intensive-care unit and open wounds. Those for colonisation were institutional care, vascular diseases and dementia. Older age was a risk factor for any MRSA infection. The length of hospital stay was dramatically increased by deep infection.

These risk factors are useful in identifying higher-risk patients who may be more susceptible to MRSA infection. A strategy of early identification and isolation may help to control its spread in trauma units.