Faculty Bibliography

Splash basins are used in arthroplasty cases to wash instruments. Several studies in the literature have shown these basins being a potential source of bacterial infection. This study assesses the risk of contamination of intraoperative splash basins used to wash and store instruments. A total of 46 random clean primary arthroplasty cases (32 hips, 13 knees, and 1 unicondylar knee) were studied by taking cultures of sterile splash basins as soon as they are opened (controls) and again at wound closure after instruments and debris have come into contact with the sterile water. All cultures were taken with sterile culture swabs and sent to the laboratory for aerobic, anaerobic, and fungal culture. Outcome measured was any positive culture. A total of 92 cultures from 46 cases were tested. Only 1 (2.17%) control culture, which grew Streptococcus viridans, was positive for bacterial growth. One of 46 samples (2.17%) taken at wound closure was positive for coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Mean time between basin opening and wound closure was 180+/-45 minutes. For the 1 infected sample taken at the conclusion of the case, it was 240 minutes. Previous studies show contamination rates as high as 74% for splash basins used intraoperatively. Our study contradicts the belief that splash basins are a high source of infection, with only 2.17% of basins showing contamination. Splash basins can be a potential source of contamination, but the risk is not as high as previously cited in the orthopedic literature

We conducted a Markov decision analysis to assess the cost savings associated with a preoperative Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization program on 365 hip and knee arthroplasties and 287 spine fusions. A 2-way sensitivity analysis was also used to calculate the needed reduction in surgical site infections to make the program cost saving. If cost of treating an infected hip or knee arthroplasty is equal to the cost of a primary knee arthroplasty, then the screening program needs to result in a 35% reduction in the revision rate, or a relative revision rate of 65% for patients in the screening program, to be cost saving. For spine fusions, the reduction in the revision rate to make the program cost saving is only 10%. Universal Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization for hip and knee arthroplasty and spinal fusion patients needs to result in only a modest reduction in the surgical site infection rate to be cost saving

In total joint arthroplasty, it is often necessary to formulate decisions that are not clearly evidence-based. This review presents some current controversial topics in total joint arthroplasty, including preoperative autologous blood donation versus erythropoietin (EPO) usage, preoperative screening and treatment for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and the use of continuous passive motion (CPM) following total knee arthroplasty, providing an evidence-based guide for the treating orthopaedic surgeon. Our review shows that preoperative autologous blood donation is over utilized, with EPO being under utilized. Surgeons are encouraged to develop patient-specific strategies, which have been shown to decrease transfusion rates, reduce wasted autologous blood, and increase EPO use. Definitive conclusions regarding MRSA screening for orthopaedic patients cannot be drawn; but due to the significant cost and morbidity associated with a postoperative MRSA infection, we believe a screen and treat protocol should be considered for all patients being admitted to the hospital for elective or emergent surgery. Short-term (3 to 5 days) inpatient use of CPM is recommended at this time. It is low-cost, has minimal risk, and may be a factor in decreasing the length of stay, potentially leading to significant cost savings. However, no long-term benefits of CPM use have been established

BACKGROUND: Although the effect of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) decolonization on surgical site infection (SSI) rates has been studied, patient tolerance and acceptance of these regimens has not been assessed. Surgical patients at our hospital's Pre-Admission Testing Clinic (PAT) receive SA reduction protocols instructing the preoperative use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) soap and intranasal mupirocin ointment (MO). Certain insurers do not cover MO costs resulting in out of pocket (OOP) expenses for some patients. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed patient attitudes and compliance with our hospital's SA decolonization regimen. METHODS: One-hundred-forty-six patients received surveys. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: Of respondents fitting inclusion criteria, 81% followed the MO protocol (MO users) while 89% followed the CHG protocol (CHG users). Fifty-four percent of MO users reported OOP expenses and 13% reported a hard or very hard financial burden. Ninety-three percent of CHG users reported the protocol was easy or very easy to follow. CONCLUSION: Eighty-one percent of patients receiving the SA protocol were fully compliant despite cost or difficulty obtaining MO. Given these barriers and some difficulty with CHG application, we hypothesize compliance may be improved if MO is provided to patients without OOP expenses and if the CHG application method is simplified.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections are an increasing health problem in the United States. To date, no study, as far as we know, has evaluated the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus colonization in orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus colonization in orthopaedic surgery attending surgeons and residents at our institution compared with that in our high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed nasal swab cultures in seventy-four orthopaedic attending surgeons and sixty-one orthopaedic surgery residents at our institution, screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. We compared these results with a prospective database of nasal cultures of patients undergoing joint replacement and spine surgery. RESULTS: A total of 135 physicians were screened. Of those physicians, 1.5% were positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and 35.7% were positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. None of the sixty-one residents were positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. However, 59% were positive for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Of the seventy-four attending surgeons, 2.7% were positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and 23.3%, for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Previous studies at our institution have demonstrated a 2.17% prevalence of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and an 18% rate of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus in high-risk patients. Thus, no difference was found between the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in residents or attending surgeons and that in the high-risk patients. However, the prevalence of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus colonization in the surgeons (35.7%) was significantly higher than that in the high-risk patient group (18%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: At a major teaching hospital, a higher prevalence of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus colonization was found among attending and resident orthopaedic surgeons compared with a high-risk patient group, but the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization was similar

Surgical site infections are a devastating complication of orthopaedic procedures and result in increased morbidity and mortality as well as higher costs. Universally, patients with surgical site infections have a worse outcome than uninfected patients. Payers of health care and regulatory organizations, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Joint Commission, are demanding both accountability and a reduction in the occurrence of surgical site infections. To effectively prevent such infections, the clinician must address preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors, along with interventions. In the areas where evidence-based literature demonstrates a clear best practice, such as prophylactic antibiotic use and surgical scrub techniques, physicians and health care professionals will be held accountable for compliance with these standards. This accountability will be quantified and will be made available to the public. It is also evident that payers will reward and/or penalize physicians for failure to comply with established standards of care. For the health and safety of patients, surgeons are obligated to become familiar with the known best practices and standards of care with respect to the reduction of surgical site infections

Meniscus injuries are one of the most commonly encountered problems by orthopaedic surgeons today. Surgical techniques for the treatment of meniscal tears are evolving. While many tears can only be treated with partial menisectomy, there are an increasing number of surgical techniques to repair or reconstruct the meniscus. Because of the large increases in contact pressures across the articular cartilage due to loss of meniscal tissue, there has been increased focus on preventing the development of degenerative joint disease from meniscal injuries requiring partial or subtotal menisectomy. Some of these newer techniques include allografts, scaffolds, collagen implants, and repair enhancements. The common goal of these newer techniques is to preserve or restore as much normal, functioning meniscal tissue as possible. This review aims to review the various techniques and history of meniscus repair as well as examine of the newer techniques being introduced to reconstruct or replace the meniscus

We investigated the effects of implementation of an institution-wide screening and decolonization protocol on the rates of deep surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing primary knee and hip arthroplasties. 2058 patients were enrolled in this study: 1644 patients in the treatment group and 414 in the control group. The treatment group attended preoperative admission testing (PAT) clinic where they were screened for MSSA and MRSA colonization. All patients were provided a 5-day course of nasal mupirocin and a single preoperative chlorhexidine shower. Additionally, patients colonized with MRSA received Vancomycin perioperative prophylaxis. The control group did not attend PAT nor receive mupirocin treatment and received either Ancef or Clindamycin for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. There were a total of 6 deep infections in the control group (1.45%) and 21 in the treatment group (1.28%); this represented a decrease of 13% (P = .809) in the treatment versus control group. This decrease represented a positive trend in favor of staphylococcus screening, decolonization with mupirocin, and perioperative Vancomycin for known MRSA carriers

The medial collateral ligament is the most frequently injured ligament of the knee. The anatomy and biomechanical role of this ligament and the associated posteromedial structures of the knee continue to be explored. Prophylactic knee bracing has shown promise in preventing injury to the medial collateral ligament, although perhaps at the cost of functional performance. Most isolated injuries are treated nonsurgically. Recent studies have investigated ligament-healing variables, including modalities such as ultrasound and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Concomitant damage to the anterior or posterior cruciate ligaments is a common indication to surgically address the high-grade medial collateral ligament injury. The optimal treatment of multiligamentous knee injuries continues to evolve, and controversy exists surrounding the role of medial collateral ligament repair/reconstruction, with data supporting both conservative and surgical management