Staphylococcus aureus is one of the leading causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Over the past decade there has been an increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This is a subpopulation of the bacterium with unique resistance and virulence characteristics. Nasal colonisation with either S. aureus or MRSA has been demonstrated to be an important independent risk factor associated with the increasing incidence and severity of SSI after orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, there is an economic burden related to SSI following orthopaedic surgery, with MRSA-associated SSI leading to longer hospital stays and increased hospital costs. Although there is some controversy about the effectiveness of screening and eradication programmes, the literature suggests that patients should be screened and MRSA-positive patients treated before surgical admission in order to reduce the risk of SSI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:4–9

Aims

Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach.

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.

We examined the rates of infection and colonisation by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) between January 2003 and May 2004 in order to assess the impact of the introduction of an MRSA policy in October 2003, which required all admissions to be screened. Emergency admissions were treated prophylactically and elective beds ring-fenced. A total of 5594 admissions were cross-referenced with 22 810 microbiology results. The morbidity, mortality and cost of managing MRSA-carrying patients, with a proximal fracture of the femur were compared, in relation to age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade and residential status, with a group of matched controls who were MRSA-negative.

In 2004, we screened 1795 of 1796 elective admissions and MRSA was found in 23 (1.3%). We also screened 1122 of 1447 trauma admissions and 43 (3.8%) were carrying MRSA. All ten ward transfers were screened and four (40%) were carriers (all p < 0.001). The incidence of MRSA in trauma patients increased by 2.6% per week of inpatient stay (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). MRSA developed in 2.9% of trauma and 0.2% of elective patients during that admission (p < 0.001). The implementation of the MRSA policy reduced the incidence of MRSA infection by 56% in trauma patients (1.57% in 2003 (17 of 1084) to 0.69% in 2004 (10 of 1447), p = 0.035). Infection with MRSA in elective patients was reduced by 70% (0.56% in 2003 (7 of 1257) to 0.17% in 2004 (3 of 1806), p = 0.06). The cost of preventing one MRSA infection was £3200.

Although colonisation by MRSA did not affect the mortality rate, infection by MRSA more than doubled it. Patients with proximal fractures of the femur infected with MRSA remained in hospital for 50 extra days, had 19 more days of vancomycin treatment and 26 more days of vacuum-assisted closure therapy than the matched controls. These additional costs equated to £13 972 per patient.

From this experience we have been able to describe the epidemiology of MRSA, assess the impact of infection-control measures on MRSA infection rates and determine the morbidity, mortality and economic cost of MRSA carriage on trauma and elective orthopaedic wards.