Deep infection was identified as a serious complication in the earliest days of total hip arthroplasty. It was identified that airborne contamination in conventional operating theatres was the major contributing factor. As progress was made in improving the engineering of operating theatres, airborne contamination was reduced. Detailed studies were carried out relating airborne contamination to deep infection rates. In a trial conducted by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC), it was found that the use of ultra-clean air (UCA) operating theatres was associated with a significant reduction in deep infection rates. Deep infection rates were further reduced by the use of a body exhaust system. The MRC trial also included a detailed microbiology study, which confirmed the relationship between airborne contamination and deep infection rates. Recent observational evidence from joint registries has shown that in contemporary practice, infection rates remain a problem, and may be getting worse. Registry observations have also called into question the value of “laminar flow” operating theatres. Observational evidence from joint registries provides very limited evidence on the efficacy of UCA operating theatres. Although there have been some changes in surgical practice in recent years, the conclusions of the MRC trial remain valid, and the use of UCA is essential in preventing deep infection. There is evidence that if UCA operating theatres are not used correctly, they may have poor microbiological performance. Current UCA operating theatres have limitations, and further research is required to update them and improve their microbiological performance in contemporary practice. Cite this article:
The number of arthroplasties being performed
increases each year. Patients undergoing an arthroplasty are at
risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and appropriate prophylaxis
has been recommended. However, the optimal protocol and the best
agent to minimise VTE under these circumstances are not known. Although
many agents may be used, there is a difference in their efficacy
and the risk of bleeding. Thus, the selection of a particular agent relies
on the balance between the desire to minimise VTE and the attempt
to reduce the risk of bleeding, with its undesirable, and occasionally
fatal, consequences. Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is an agent for VTE prophylaxis
following arthroplasty. Many studies have shown its efficacy in
minimising VTE under these circumstances. It is inexpensive and
well-tolerated, and its use does not require routine blood tests.
It is also a ‘milder’ agent and unlikely to result in haematoma
formation, which may increase both the risk of infection and the
need for further surgery. Aspirin is also unlikely to result in persistent
wound drainage, which has been shown to be associated with the use
of agents such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and other
more aggressive agents. The main objective of this review was to summarise the current
evidence relating to the efficacy of aspirin as a VTE prophylaxis
following arthroplasty, and to address some of the common questions
about its use. There is convincing evidence that, taking all factors into account,
aspirin is an effective, inexpensive, and safe form of VTE following
arthroplasty in patients without a major risk factor for VTE, such
as previous VTE. Cite this article:
