There is mixed evidence in the literature regarding increasing age, ASA and BMI as risk factors for surgical site infection in orthopaedic surgery. To investigate the matter further, we examined 1055 wounds in 1008 patients in the Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery at University College London Hospital between 2000 and 2006. All patients with a minimum two-night stay were included. Data was collected by four designated research nurses. The age, height, weight and ASA status of each patient was recorded. All wounds were classified using ASEPSIS. This is a quantitative wound scoring method which is a summation of scores calculated from visual wound characteristics and the clinical consequences of infection.

Our results showed a strong linear association between age and ASEPSIS scores. Single variable regression analysis showed a t value of 3.32 and p value of 0.001. A similar linear association was seen between ASA grading and ASEPSIS scores. Single variable regression analysis showed a t value of 2.75 and p value of 0.006. The association between BMI and ASEPSIS scores was markedly different from that seen with age and ASA. The graph was U-shaped with patients with a BMI of 25-30 having the lowest average ASEPSIS scores. Patients with a lower and a higher BMI had higher average ASEPSIS scores. Single variable regression analysis was not significant since the relationship between BMI and ASEPSIS scores is not linear.

In conclusion, there are clearly defined patient groups who are at increased risk of developing a surgical site infection: older patients, patients with a higher ASA, and patients with both a low and high BMI. These patients should be targeted to reduce overall infection rates. This can be achieved by ensuring adequate antibiotic prophylaxis, having a low threshold to treat suspected infection and arranging regular follow-up.

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.