ORTHOPAEDIC WOUND SURVEILLANCE USING ASEPSIS

Abstract

Aims: To determine the rate of orthopaedic wound infection using ASEPSIS and compare this to the rate of infection as defined by the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) and the UK Surgical Site Infection Surveillance Service (SSISS).

Background: It is a common misconception that reported rates of orthopaedic wound infection are accurate, reliable and reproducible. Most definitions of infection, including CDC and SSISS, are subjective and depend on the interpretation of the surgeon. ASEPSIS1 is a method of wound scoring which grades wounds as uninfected, disturbed healing, minor infection, moderate infection and severe infection. ASEPSIS scoring has been proven to be both objective and repeatable2.

Method: Over 4 years, 1113 orthopaedic wounds were prospectively evaluated using the CDC definition for surgical site infections, the SSISS definition and the ASEPSIS scoring method. Patients were seen pre-operatively and at 3 and 5 days post-operatively. They also completed a wound surveillance questionnaire at 2 months post-discharge.

Results: The overall infection rates were 8% as defined by CDC, 4% as defined by SSISS and 3% as defined by ASEPSIS. Further classification of the wounds as defined by ASEPSIS revealed that 91% of wounds showed no evidence of infection (score < 10), 6.6% showed a disturbance of healing (score 11–20), 2.3% had a minor infection (score 21–30), 0.4% had a moderate infection (score 31–40) and 0.3% had severe infection (score > 40).

Conclusion: This study illustrates that accurate wound surveillance is not simple. Different wound infection definitions give very different rates of infection and make comparisons between surgeons and hospitals impossible.

We propose that ASEPSIS provides the most accurate and reproducible results and also provides more information with the grading of wound infection. The overall rate of orthopaedic wound infection using the ASEPSIS method is 3%. If all hospitals used this scoring method, more accurate comparisons of infection rates could be made.