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

Aims. The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway. Methods. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative test was calculated using a lower-end RT-PCR sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 95%, and the UK disease prevalence of 0.24% reported in May 2020. Subsequently, a case fatality rate of 20.5% was applied as a worst-case scenario. Results. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a false negative preoperative test was 0.07% (around 1 in 1,400). The risk of a patient with an undetected infection being admitted for surgery and subsequently dying from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is estimated at approximately 1 in 7,000. However, if an estimate of the current global infection fatality rate (1.04%) is applied, the risk of death would be around 1 in 140,000, at most. This calculation does not take into account the risk of nosocomial infection. Conversely, it does not factor in that patients will also be clinically assessed and asked to self-isolate prior to surgery. Conclusion. Our estimation suggests that the risk of patients being inadvertently admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection for elective orthopaedic surgery is relatively low. Accordingly, the risk of death following elective orthopaedic surgery is low, even when applying the worst-case fatality rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1256–1260

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

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.

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.