Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 7, pp 1015–1019 | Cite as

Contamination rate of the surgical gowns during total hip arthroplasty

  • Ianiv KlaberEmail author
  • Pablo Ruiz
  • Daniel Schweitzer
  • Maria Jesus Lira
  • Eduardo Botello
  • Aniela Wozniak
Hip Arthroplasty
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Surgical instrument contamination during total joint replacement is a matter of major concern. Available recommendations suggest changing suction tips, gloves and avoiding light handle manipulation during the procedure. There is a paucity of data regarding surgical gown contamination. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the contamination rate of surgical gowns (SGs) during total hip arthroplasty (THA) and secondarily compare it with other orthopedic procedures.

Materials and methods

One hundred and forty surgical gowns (from 70 surgeries) were screened for bacterial contamination using thioglycolate (a high-sensitivity culture broth). The THA contamination rate was compared with those of knee and spine procedures. Controls were obtained at the beginning of every surgery and from the culture broth. The procedure’s duration and the level of training of the surgeon were evaluated as potential risk factors for contamination.

Results

Bacterial contamination was identified on 12% of surgical gowns (22% of surgical procedures). The contamination rate during THA was 4.1% (2% in primary THA and 8.3% in revisions) vs 21.67% during other surgeries (spine and knee) (OR 6.15, p = 0.012). There were no contaminated SGs during THAs performed in ≤ 2 h (0/33 SGs) vs 7.5% (3/40) for THAs that took ≥ 2 h (p = 0.25).

Conclusion

There was a high rate of SG contamination during orthopedic procedures that was higher during non-arthroplasty procedures and prolonged THAs. There were no contaminated surgical gowns in THAs under 120 min, efforts should point keeping primary THAs under this cutoff time. As a general recommendation, SGs should be changed every time there is concern about potential contamination.

Keywords

Surgical gowns Periprosthetic joint infection Surgical field contamination Revisions Complications 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Mr. Luis Celis for the management of the samples in the microbiology laboratory. Mrs. Pamela Mery and Macarena Sepulveda for the development and management of our database.

Funding

This study has no fundings to report.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

D. Schweitzer has received speaker honorarium from Zimmer/Biomet and Depuy/Synthes. E. Botello is a consultant for Zimmer/Biomet and associate editor of the Journal of The Orthopedic Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology of Chile.

References

  1. 1.
    Robinson ANH, Drew S, Anderson J et al (1993) Suction tip contamination in the ultraclean-air operating theatre. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75:254–256Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beldame J, Lagrave B, Lievain L et al (2012) Surgical glove bacterial contamination and perforation during total hip arthroplasty implantation: when gloves should be changed. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:432–440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdelaziz H, Zahar A, Lausmann C et al (2018) High bacterial contamination rate of electrocautery tips during total hip and knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 42(4):755–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schweitzer D, Klaber I, Fischman D et al (2015) Surgical light handles: a source of contamination in the surgical field. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 49:421–425.  https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0401 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis N, Curry A, Gambhir AK et al (1999) Intraoperative bacterial contamination in operations for joint replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 81:886–889.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.81B5.9545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bullock MW, Brown ML, Bracey DN et al (2017) A bundle protocol to reduce the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections after total joint arthroplasty: a single-center experience. J Arthroplasty 32:1067–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370:1508–1519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parveen S, Kaur S, David SA et al (2011) Evaluation of growth based rapid microbiological methods for sterility testing of vaccines and other biological products. Vaccine 29:8012–8023.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.08.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bible JE, Biswas D, Whang PG et al (2009) Which regions of the operating gown should be considered most sterile? Clin Orthop Relat Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0341-1 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM et al (2017) Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 18:722–735.  https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2017.089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hosseini P, Mundis GM, Eastlack R et al (2016) Do longer surgical procedures result in greater contamination of surgeons’ hands? Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1707–1713.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4832-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalstrom DJ, Venkatarayappa I, Manternach AL et al (2008) Time-dependent contamination of opened sterile operating-room trays. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 90:1022–1025.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaya I, Uǧrafi AA, Sungur I et al (2012) Glove perforation time and frequency in total hip arthroplasty procedures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc.  https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2012.2660 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aalirezaie A, Akkaya M, Barnes CL et al (2019) General assembly, prevention, operating room environment: proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections. J Arthroplasty 34(2S):S105–S115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blom AW, Estela C, Bowker K et al (2000) The passage of bacteria through surgical drapes. Ann R Coll Surg Engl.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12111 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ong KL, Kurtz SM, Lau E et al (2009) Prosthetic joint infection risk after total hip arthroplasty in the medicare population. J Arthroplasty.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.027 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of MedicinePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Department of Clinical LaboratoriesPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations