Though inherently linked to the act of surgery, surgical site infection (SSI) is an adverse event that places a heavy burden on surgery. It is every surgeon's nightmare, particularly since no matter how hard we try and prevent this complication, we do not seem to be able to completely prevent SSIs. But are we really trying?Surgical site infection has long been the main cause of surgical failure, historically leading to situations where surgery was considered an intervention of last resort, and the procedure worse than the actual pathology. In the middle of the 19th century abdominal interventions in man were banned due to the unacceptable mortality associated with the high infection rate [1]. Historically, infectious complications like erysipelas, tetanus, pyaemia, septicaemia and gangrene caused mean mortality rates of 60% subsequent to the most commonly performed surgical procedure of amputation [2]. Suppuration was considered normal, even a necessary and unavoidable step in the wound healing process. It is only with the pioneering work of Semmelweis, who published his book on the aetiology and prophylaxis of puerperal fever in 1861, that the scientific and medical world understood that human lives were not a necessary toll to be paid through what is now recognised as nosocomial infections. The simultaneous discovery of the germ theory led to the establishment of methods to combat sepsis, leading to the antisepsis era mainly promoted by Lister and his use of carbolic acid bandages. Soon after, pushed by Pasteur's saying, Instead of fighting bacteria in wounds, would it not just be better not to introduce them, surgeons like Koch and Halsted developed the methods to avoid the development of sepsis: the founding principles of asepsis and aseptic technique. Nowadays, these discoveries are considered to have had the greatest impact ever on patient survival with regard to infectious diseases or probably any other medical advancement. Yet, at the time, their peers sneered at those that we now consider 'godfathers of surgery'. Despite the dramatic drops in mortality, the establishment of clean aseptic surgery was delayed by ignorance and disbelief of evidence together with the belief that personal experience was more essential than aseptic technique. For instance the filthier the jacket the greater the prestige, as surgeons accumulated blood stains from previous operations as a sign of experience.Even today, with the accumulation, understanding and apparent acceptance of all this knowledge, surgical site infection remains the most common cause of infection in surgical patients [3], both human and veterinary.In equine surgery, depending on procedure and wound classification, surgical site infection rates of 0% to more than 50% have been reported [4]. Hampered by the lack of appropriate SSI definitions, absence of proper prospective surveillance programmes and small sample size, these reports probably provide a false insight into the SSI problem in equine surgery. The European CDC report on human SSI shows that up to 7...