Cargando…

Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational and case control study. PURPOSE: To identify appropriate treatment options according to the types of surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been no agreement or consensus w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Jung Su, Ahn, Dong Ki, Chang, Byung Kwon, Lee, Jae Il
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26713114
http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.6.841
_version_ 1782406431276793856
author Lee, Jung Su
Ahn, Dong Ki
Chang, Byung Kwon
Lee, Jae Il
author_facet Lee, Jung Su
Ahn, Dong Ki
Chang, Byung Kwon
Lee, Jae Il
author_sort Lee, Jung Su
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational and case control study. PURPOSE: To identify appropriate treatment options according to the types of surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been no agreement or consensus with regard to this matter. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive SSIs were included and followed for more than one year. The elapsed time to diagnosis (ETD) according to the type of SSI was analyzed. The treatment options for each type and consequent clinical results were reviewed. The risk factors of removing the implants were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 6/32 (19%) superficial incisional, 6/32 (19%) deep incisional, and 20/32 (62%) organ/space infection cases (SII, DII, and O/SI, respectively) (p=0.002). ETD was 8.5±2.3 days in SII, 8.7±2.3 days in DII, and 164.5±131.1 days in O/SI (p=0.013). All cases of SII and DII retained implants and were treated by repeated irrigation and secondary closure. Among O/SIs, 10/20 were treated conservatively. Nine out of ten underwent posterior one stage simultaneous revision (POSSR) and in one case, the cage was removed anteriorly. Those who had ETDs longer than 3 months showed a significant risk of implant removal (p=0.008, odds ratio [OR]=40.3). The Oswestry disability index (ODI) improved from 47.3% to 33.8% in SII, from 55.0% to 32.3% in DII, and from 53.4% to 42.1% in O/SI (p=0.002). There was no difference among the three groups (p=0.106); however, there was a partial correlation between ETD and final ODI (r=0.382, p=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Latent O/SI was the most common type of SSI in PLIF. In cases of SII and DII, early aggressive wound management and secondary closure was effective and implant removal was not necessary. In some cases of O/SI, implant removal was unavoidable. However, implant removal could be averted by an earlier diagnosis. POSSR was feasible and safe. Functional outcomes were improved; however, disability increased as ETD increased.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4686387
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46863872015-12-28 Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lee, Jung Su Ahn, Dong Ki Chang, Byung Kwon Lee, Jae Il Asian Spine J Clinical Study STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational and case control study. PURPOSE: To identify appropriate treatment options according to the types of surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been no agreement or consensus with regard to this matter. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive SSIs were included and followed for more than one year. The elapsed time to diagnosis (ETD) according to the type of SSI was analyzed. The treatment options for each type and consequent clinical results were reviewed. The risk factors of removing the implants were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 6/32 (19%) superficial incisional, 6/32 (19%) deep incisional, and 20/32 (62%) organ/space infection cases (SII, DII, and O/SI, respectively) (p=0.002). ETD was 8.5±2.3 days in SII, 8.7±2.3 days in DII, and 164.5±131.1 days in O/SI (p=0.013). All cases of SII and DII retained implants and were treated by repeated irrigation and secondary closure. Among O/SIs, 10/20 were treated conservatively. Nine out of ten underwent posterior one stage simultaneous revision (POSSR) and in one case, the cage was removed anteriorly. Those who had ETDs longer than 3 months showed a significant risk of implant removal (p=0.008, odds ratio [OR]=40.3). The Oswestry disability index (ODI) improved from 47.3% to 33.8% in SII, from 55.0% to 32.3% in DII, and from 53.4% to 42.1% in O/SI (p=0.002). There was no difference among the three groups (p=0.106); however, there was a partial correlation between ETD and final ODI (r=0.382, p=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Latent O/SI was the most common type of SSI in PLIF. In cases of SII and DII, early aggressive wound management and secondary closure was effective and implant removal was not necessary. In some cases of O/SI, implant removal was unavoidable. However, implant removal could be averted by an earlier diagnosis. POSSR was feasible and safe. Functional outcomes were improved; however, disability increased as ETD increased. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2015-12 2015-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4686387/ /pubmed/26713114 http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.6.841 Text en Copyright © 2015 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Lee, Jung Su
Ahn, Dong Ki
Chang, Byung Kwon
Lee, Jae Il
Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_fullStr Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_short Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_sort treatment of surgical site infection in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26713114
http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.6.841
work_keys_str_mv AT leejungsu treatmentofsurgicalsiteinfectioninposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT ahndongki treatmentofsurgicalsiteinfectioninposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT changbyungkwon treatmentofsurgicalsiteinfectioninposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT leejaeil treatmentofsurgicalsiteinfectioninposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion