Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:27:50.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Infection and sepsis after operations for total hip or knee-joint replacement: influence of ultraclean air, prophylactic antibiotics and other factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

O. M. Lidwell
Affiliation:
Formerly of the Cross Infection Reference Laboratory, Colindale, London
E. J. L. Lowbury
Affiliation:
Formerly of the Medical Research Council Burns Unit, Accident Hospital, Birmingham.
W. Whyte
Affiliation:
Building Services Research Unit, University of Glasgow
R. Blowers
Affiliation:
Formerly of the Medical Research Council Clinical Research Centre and Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow
S. J. Stanley
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge
D. Lowe
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Operating in ultraclean air and the prophylactic use of antibiotics have been found to reduce the incidence of joint sepsis confirmed at re-operation, after total hip or knee-joint replacement. The reduction was about 2-fold when operations were done in ultraclean air, 4·5-fold when body-exhaust suits also were worn, and about 3- to 4-fold when antibiotics had been given prophylactically. The effects of ultraclean air and antibiotics were additive. Wound sepsis recognized during post-operative hospital stay was, however, reduced by these measures only when it had been classed as major wound sepsis. This was reported after 2·3% of operations done without antibiotic cover in conventionally ventilated operating rooms.

Joint sepsis was much more frequent after wound infection and especially after major wound sepsis, although most cases of joint sepsis were not preceded by recognized wound sepsis. This was particularly noticeable after major wound sepsis associated with Staphylococcus aureus; after 37 such infections the same species was subsequently found in the septic joint of 11 patients. The sources of wound colonization with Staph. aureus, when this was not followed by joint sepsis, appeared to differ widely from those where joint sepsis occurred later. Operating-room sources could bo found for most of the latter and the risk of infection appeared to be similar with respect to any carrier in the operating room whether a member of the operating team or tho patient. For wound colonization that was not followed by joint sepsis, operating-room sources could only be inferred for fewer than half and of these more than one half appeared to be related to strains carried by the patient at the time of operation.

During tho follow-up period, which averaged about 2¼ years with a maximum of four years, there were, in addition to the 86 instances of deep joint sepsis confirmed at re-operation, 85 instances in which sepsis in the joint was suspected during this period but was not confirmed, because re-operation on the joint was not done. The incidence of suspected joint sepsis was, like that of confirmed joint sepsis, less after operations done in ultraclean air: 1/2·5, or with prophylactic antibiotics, 1/2·3

Although re-operation was more frequent on tho knee-joint than on the hip, and pain after the initial operation was more frequent after knee operations, there was no evidence that this was the result of any increased risk of infection.

There was some indication of an increased risk of joint sepsis and of major wound sepsis, after operations on patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with other diagnoses. The increase could have been as much as twofold but, because of the small numbers involved, the statistical limitations of the study render these differences only marginally significant.

When wound washout samples had been obtained from the surgical wound after the insertion of the prosthesis the risk of subsequent joint sepsis was found to be considerably greater for those patients from whose wounds larger numbers of bateria were isolated than from those of other patients at the same hospital.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

Blowers, R. (1963). Operating-room practice. In Infection in Hospitals (ed. Williams, R. E. O. and Shooter, R. A.), pp.202203. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Charnley, J. (1979). Low friction arthroplasly of the hip. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, R. H., Declan, R. N., Ilstrap, D. M., Van Scoy, R. E., Washington, J. A. & Coventy, M. B. (1977). Deep wound sepsis following total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery 59-A, 847855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, C., Flamant, R., Mazas, F. & Everard, H. (1981). Prophylactic Cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement. Lancet, i, 795797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamme, C. & Lindberg, L. (1981). Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in deep infections after total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 154, 202207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidgren, L. (1973). Orthopaedic infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 2, 9296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M. (1982). ‘Don't touch the blade.’ Control of surgical sepsis. In Evaluation and Management of Hospital Infections (ed. Furth, R. Van), pp. 131150. The Hague, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhof.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. (1984). The cost implications of clean air systems and antibiotic prophylaxis in operations for total joint replacement. Infection Control 5, 3637. (Vertical scale and legend to figure are wrongly given, see text.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M., Lowhury, E. J. L., Whyte, W., Blowers, R., Stanley, S. J. & Lowe, D. (1982). Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement; a randomised study. British Medical Journal 285, 1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M., Lownury, E. J. L., Whyte, W., Blowers, R., Stanley, S. J. & Lowe, D. (1983 a). Bacteria isolated from deep joint sepsis after operation for total hip or knee replacement and the sources of the infections with Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Hospital Infection 4, 1929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M., Lowbury, E. J. L., Whyte, W., Blowers, R., Stanley, S. J. & Lowe, D. (1983 b). Airborne contamination of wounds in joint replacement operations: the relationship to sepsis rates. Journal of Hospital Infection 4, 111131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindberq, L. (1979). Operations boxar. Läkartidningen 76, 10751078.Google Scholar
Poss, R., Ewald, F. C., Thomas, W. H. & Sledge, C. B. (1976). Complications of total hip replacement arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 58-A, 11301133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surin, W., Sundholm, K. & Backman, L. (1983). Infection, after total hip replacement, with special reference to a discharge from the wound. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 65-B, 412418.Google ScholarPubMed
Trexler, P. C. (1973). An isolator system for the maintenance of aseptic environments. Lancet i 9193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, W., Hodgson, R., Tinkler, J. & Graham, J. (1981). The isolation of bacteria of low pathogenicity from faulty orthopaedic implants. Journal of Hospital Infection 2, 219230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed