Dataset Information

Effects of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on Wound Dehiscence and Surgical Site Infection Following Instrumented Spinal Fusion Surgery-A Single Surgeon's Experience.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used in many surgical specialties to prevent postoperative dehiscence and surgical site infections (SSIs). However, little is known about the role of incisional NPWT in spine fusion surgery. Therefore, we sought to report a single surgeon's experience using incisional NPWT and describe its effects on dehiscence and SSIs after instrumented spine surgery.

Methods

We compared rates of hospital readmission and return to the operating room for dehiscence and SSIs in a consecutive series of patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery with or without NPWT from 2015 to 2018.

Results

A total of 393 patients without and 76 patients with NPWT were included for analysis. Half way through the data collection period, all patients who underwent anterior lumbar fusion received NPWT. Three of 15 (20.0%) of non-NPWT patients who underwent anterior lumbar fusion had dehiscence or SSI compared with zero of 23 (0.0%) of NPWT patients (P = 0.01). NPWT for posterior surgeries was used on a case-by-case basis using risk factors that contribute to SSIs and dehiscence. NPWT patients had higher rates of spinal neoplasia (0.5% vs. 11.3%, P < 0.0001), osteomyelitis/diskitis (1.3% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.02), durotomy (14.9% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.007), revision surgery (32.2% vs. 59.6%, P = 0.0001), and longer fusion constructs (7 vs. 11 levels, P < 0.0001) but had similar rates of dehiscence and SSIs as non-NPWT patients (5.6% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.98).

Conclusions

NPWT decreases dehiscence and SSIs in patients undergoing lumbar fusion through an anterior approach. When preferentially used in patients at high risk for postoperative wound complications, NPWT prevents increased rates of dehiscence and SSI.

SUBMITTER: Naylor RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8063507 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Two-year clinical and radiographic follow-up of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, intra-patient controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing a bone graft substitute (AttraX Putty) with autograft in instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) surgery. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare PLF rates between 1 and 2 years of follow-up and between graft types, and to explore the role of bone grafting based on the location of the PLF mass. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:There are indications that bony fusion proceeds over time, but it is unknown to what extent this can be related to bone grafting. METHODS:A total of 100 adult patients underwent a primary, single- or multilevel, thoracolumbar PLF. After instrumentation and preparation for grafting, the randomized allocation side of AttraX Putty was disclosed. The contralateral posterolateral gutters were grafted with autograft. At 1-year follow-up, and in case of no fusion at 2 years, the fusion status of both sides of each segment was blindly assessed on CT scans. Intertransverse and facet fusion were scored separately. Difference in fusion rates after 1 and 2 years and between grafts were analyzed with a Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model (P?<?0.05). RESULTS:The 2-year PLF rate (66 patients) was 70% at the AttraX Putty and 68% at the autograft side, compared to 55% and 52% after 1 year (87 patients). GEE analysis demonstrated a significant increase for both conditions (odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.5-2.7, P?<?0.001), but no difference between the grafts (P?=?0.595). Ongoing bone formation was only observed between the facet joints. CONCLUSION:This intra-patient controlled trial demonstrated a significant increase in PLF rate between 1 and 2 years after instrumented thoracolumbar fusion, but no difference between AttraX Putty and autograft. Based on the location of the PLF mass, this increase is most likely the result of immobilization instead of grafting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:1.

Project description:Study designRetrospective hospital-registry study.ObjectiveTo characterize the microbial epidemiology of surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal fusion surgery and the burden of resistance to standard surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.Summary of background dataSSI persists as a leading complication of spinal fusion surgery despite the growth of enhanced recovery programs and improvements in other measures of surgical quality. Improved understandings of SSI microbiology and common mechanisms of failure for current prevention strategies are required to inform the development of novel approaches to prevention relevant to modern surgical practice.MethodsSpinal fusion cases performed at a single referral center between January 2011 and June 2019 were reviewed and SSI cases meeting National Healthcare Safety Network criteria were identified. Using microbiologic and procedural data from each case, we analyzed the anatomic distribution of pathogens, their differential time to presentation, and correlation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening results. Susceptibility of isolates cultured from each infection were compared with the spectrum of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administered during the index procedure on a per-case basis. Susceptibility to alternate prophylactic agents was also modeled.ResultsAmong 6727 cases, 351 infections occurred within 90 days. An anatomic gradient in the microbiology of SSI was observed across the length of the back, transitioning from cutaneous (gram-positive) flora in the cervical spine to enteric (gram-negative/anaerobic) flora in the lumbosacral region (correlation coefficient 0.94, P < 0.001). The majority (57.5%) of infections were resistant to the prophylaxis administered during the procedure. Cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative infection was common at lumbosacral levels and undetected methicillin-resistance was common at cervical levels.ConclusionIndividualized infection prevention strategies tailored to operative level are needed in spine surgery. Endogenous wound contamination with enteric flora may be a common mechanism of infection in lumbosacral fusion. Novel approaches to prophylaxis and prevention should be prioritized in this population.Level of Evidence: 3.

Project description:ImportanceObesity increases the risk of both cesarean delivery and surgical-site infection. Despite widespread use, it is unclear whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery in obese women.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, initiated immediately after cesarean delivery, lowers the risk of surgical-site infections compared with standard wound dressing in obese women.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter randomized trial conducted from February 8, 2017, through November 13, 2019, at 4 academic and 2 community hospitals across the United States. Obese women undergoing planned or unplanned cesarean delivery were eligible. The study was terminated after 1624 of 2850 participants were recruited when a planned interim analysis showed increased adverse events in the negative pressure group and futility for the primary outcome. Final follow-up was December 18, 2019.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to either undergo prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, with application of the negative pressure device immediately after repair of the surgical incision (n = 816), or receive standard wound dressing (n = 808).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was superficial or deep surgical-site infection according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions. Secondary outcomes included other wound complications, composite of surgical-site infections and other wound complications, and adverse skin reactions.ResultsOf the 1624 women randomized (mean age, 30.4 years, mean body mass index, 39.5), 1608 (99%) completed the study: 806 in the negative pressure group (median duration of negative pressure, 4 days) and 802 in the standard dressing group. Superficial or deep surgical-site infection was diagnosed in 29 participants (3.6%) in the negative pressure group and 27 (3.4%) in the standard dressing group (difference, 0.36%; 95% CI, -1.46% to 2.19%, P = .70). Of 30 prespecified secondary end points, 25 showed no significant differences, including other wound complications (2.6% vs 3.1%; difference, -0.53%; 95% CI, -1.93% to 0.88%; P = .46) and composite of surgical-site infections and other wound complications (6.5% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.27%; 95% CI, -2.71% to 2.25%; P = .83). Adverse skin reactions were significantly more frequent in the negative pressure group (7.0% vs 0.6%; difference, 6.95%; 95% CI, 1.86% to 12.03%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong obese women undergoing cesarean delivery, prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, compared with standard wound dressing, did not significantly reduce the risk of surgical-site infection. These findings do not support routine use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in obese women after cesarean delivery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03009110.

Project description:Previous studies to identify risk factors for postoperative deep infection following instrumented spinal fusion surgery for degenerative spinal disease are based on insufficient information and have limited use in clinical practice. This study aims to fill this gap by assessing the risk factors and their adjusted relative risks through a comprehensive analysis, including all core information. In this nationwide, population-based, cohort study, data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance claims database between 1 January 2014, and 31 December 2018. This study included a cohort of 194,036 patients older than 19 years, who underwent instrumented spinal fusion surgery for degenerative spinal disease. We divided this population into cases (patients with postoperative deep infection) and controls (patients without postoperative deep infection); risk factors for postoperative deep infection were determined by multivariable analysis. The definition of postoperative deep infection varied, and sensitivity analyses were performed according to each definition. The estimates of all the statistical models were internally validated using bootstrap samples. The study included 767 patients (0.39%) with postoperative deep spinal infections and 193,269 controls. The final multivariable model identified the following variables as significant risk factors for postoperative deep infection: age between 60-69 years (OR = 1.6 [1.1-2.3]); age between 70-79 years (OR = 1.7 [1.2-2.5]); age > 80 years (OR = 2.1 [1.3-3.2]); male sex (OR = 1.7 [1.5-2.0]); rural residence (OR = 1.3 [1.1-1.5]); anterior cervical approach (OR = 0.2 [0.1-0.3]); posterior cervical approach (OR = 0.5 [0.2-1.0]); multiple approaches (OR = 1.4 [1.2-1.6]); cerebrovascular disease (OR = 1.5 [1.2-1.8]); peripheral vascular disease (OR = 1.3 [1.1-1.5]); chronic pulmonary disease (OR = 1.2 [1.0-1.4]); rheumatologic disease (OR = 1.6 [1.3-2.1]); liver disease (OR = 1.4 [1.1-1.7]); diabetes (OR = 1.5 [1.3-1.7]); hemiplegia or paraplegia (OR = 2.2 [1.5-3.3]); allogenous transfusion (OR = 1.6 [1.3-1.8]); and use of systemic steroids over 2 weeks (OR = 1.5 [1.1-2.0]). Our results, which are based on homogenous patient groups, provide clinicians with an acceptable tool for comprehensive risk assessment of postoperative deep infection in patients who will undergo instrumented spinal fusion surgery for degenerative spinal disease.