Using the Trent regional arthroplasty register, we analysed the survival at ten years of 1198 consecutive Charnley total hip replacements carried out across a single health region of the United Kingdom in 1990. At ten years, information regarding outcome was available for 1001 hips (83.6%). The crude revision rate was 6.2% (62 of 1001) and the cumulative survival rate with revision of the components as an end-point was 93.1%. At five years, a review of this series of patients identified gross radiological failure in 25 total hip replacements which had previously been unrecognised. At ten years the outcome was known for 18 of these 25 patients (72%), of whom 13 had not undergone revision.

This is the first study to assess the survival at ten years for the primary Charnley total hip replacement performed in a broad cross-section of hospitals in the United Kingdom, as opposed to specialist centres. Our results highlight the importance of the arthroplasty register in identifying the long-term outcome of hip prostheses.

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.