Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.

We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of skin adhesive and staples for skin closure in total hip replacement. The primary outcome was the cosmetic appearance of the scar at three months using a surgeon-rated visual analogue scale. In all, 90 patients were randomised to skin closure using either skin adhesive (n = 45) or staples (n = 45). Data on demographics, surgical details, infection and oozing were collected during the in-patient stay. Further data on complications, patient satisfaction and evaluation of cosmesis were collected at three-month follow-up, and a photograph of the scar was taken. An orthopaedic and a plastic surgeon independently evaluated the cosmetic appearance of the scars from the photographs. No significant difference was found between groups in the cosmetic appearance of scars at three months (p = 0.172), the occurrence of complications (p = 0.3), or patient satisfaction (p = 0.42). Staples were quicker and easier to use than skin adhesive and also less expensive. Skin adhesive and surgical staples are both effective skin closure methods in total hip replacement.

Thromboprophylaxis after elective orthopaedic surgery remains controversial. Recent guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have suggested that low molecular weight heparin should be given to all patients undergoing total hip replacement. The British Orthopaedic Association is currently debating this guideline with NICE, as it is not clear whether published evidence supports this view. We present the early mortality in our unit after total hip replacement using aspirin as chemical thromboprophylaxis. The 30-day and 90-day mortality after primary total hip arthroplasty was zero. We compare this with that reported previously from our unit without using chemical thromboprophylaxis. With the introduction of routine aspirin thromboprophylaxis, deaths from cardiovascular causes have dropped from 0.75% to zero.

These results demonstrate that there is a strong argument for the routine administration of aspirin after elective total hip replacement.