Risk factors for surgical site infection in spinal surgery

Division of Infectious Diseases and Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Journal of Neurosurgery (Impact Factor: 3.23). 03/2003; 98(2 Suppl):149-55. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2003.98.2.0149
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to identify specific independent risk factors for surgical site infections (SSIs) occurring after laminectomy or spinal fusion.
The authors performed a retrospective case-control study of data obtained in patients between 1996 and 1999 who had undergone laminectomy and/or spinal fusion. Forty-one patients with SSI or meningitis were identified, and data were compared with those acquired in 178 uninfected control patients. Risk factors for SSI were determined using univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression. The spinal surgery-related SSI rate (incisional and organ space) during the 4-year study period was 2.8%. Independent risk factors for SSI identified by multivariate analysis were postoperative incontinence (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9-22.8), posterior approach (OR 8.2, 95% CI 2-33.5), procedure for tumor resection (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.7-22.3), and morbid obesity (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.9-14.2). In patients with SSI the postoperative hospital length of stay was significantly longer than that in uninfected patients (median 6 and 3 days, respectively; p < 0.001) and were readmitted to the hospital for a median additional 6 days for treatment of their infection. Repeated surgery due to the infection was required in the majority (73%) of infected patients.
Postoperative incontinence, posterior approach, surgery for tumor resection, and morbid obesity were independent risk factors predictive of SSI following spinal surgery. Interventions to reduce the risk for these potentially devastating infections need to be developed.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. To assess the rate of postoperative infection associated with minimally invasive noninstrumented spinal surgery. Infection after spinal surgery results in significant morbidity, extended hospital stay, and significant costs. Minimally invasive spinal techniques require smaller incisions and less dissection, minimizing the risk of postoperative infection. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing posterior spinal surgery using a tubular retractor system with the aid of operative microscope between June 1998 and November 2013. The analysis revealed a total number of 4350 procedures performed in 4037 patients (mean age = 53.2 yr). Sixty percent of the patients were male. The majority of procedures were performed in the lumbar spine (98.4%), and the indication was mostly degenerative in nature (96.9%). The databases were then reviewed for any infectious complications. Postoperative infection was recorded in 4 patients (0.09%). All of them occurred in the lumbar region after discectomy. These patients presented with discitis and underwent revision in the form of open debridement and fusion. The time lapse between the index surgery and revision was 56 days. All 4 patients recovered, with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Infection rate after posterior transtubular microscopic assisted spinal surgery is very low (0.09%). Surgical debridement with fusion was the method of choice in treating such complications. This minimally invasive technique reduces markedly the risk of postoperative infection when compared with other large series published in the literature. 4.
    Spine 02/2015; 40(3):201-5. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000690 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Surgical site infection (SSI) following spine surgery is a dreaded complication with significant morbidity and economic burden. SSIs following spine surgery can be superficial, characterized by obvious wound drainage or deep-seated with a healed wound. Staphylococcus aureus remains the principal causal agent. There are certain pre-operative risk factors that increase the risk of SSI, mainly diabetes, smoking, steroids, and peri-operative transfusions. Additionally, intra-operative risk factors include surgical invasiveness, type of fusion, implant use, and traditional instead of minimally invasive approach. A high level of suspicion is crucial to attaining an early definitive diagnosis and initiating appropriate management. The most common presenting symptom is back pain, usually manifesting 2-4 weeks and up to 3 months after a spinal procedure. Scheduling a follow-up visit between weeks 2 and 4 after surgery is therefore necessary for early detection. Inflammatory markers are important diagnostic tools, and comparing pre-operative with post-operative levels should be done when suspecting SSIs following spine surgery. Particularly, serum amyloid A is a novel inflammatory marker that can expedite the diagnosis of SSIs. Magnetic resonance imaging remains the diagnostic modality of choice when suspecting a SSI following spine surgery. While 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography is not widely used, it may be useful in challenging cases. Despite their low yield, blood cultures should be collected before initiating antibiotic therapy. Samples from wound drainage should be sent for Gram stain and cultures. When there is a high clinical suspicion of SSI and in the absence of superficial wound drainage, computed tomography-guided aspiration of paraspinal collections is warranted. Unless the patient is hemodynamically compromised, antibiotics should be deferred until proper specimens for culture are secured.
    03/2014; 1:7. DOI:10.3389/fmed.2014.00007
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The surgical treatment in spinal metastases has been shown to improve function and neurological outcome. Unplanned hospital readmissions can be costly and cause unnecessary harm. PURPOSE: Our aim was to firstly analyse the re-operation rate and indications for this revision surgery in spinal metastases from an academic tertiary spinal institute and secondly, to make comparisons on outcome (neurology and survival) against patients who underwent single surgery only. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: An ambispective review of all patients treated surgically over 8 year period considering their neurological and survival outcome data. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 20. Since all scale values did not follow the normal distribution and significant outlier values existed, all descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using median values and the Median test. Crosstabs and Pearson's correlation were used to calculate differences between percentages and ordinal/ nominal values. For two population proportions the Z Test was used to calculate differences. The Log Rank Mantel-Cox analysis was used to compare survival. PATIENT SAMPLE: During the 8 years' study period, there were 384 patients who underwent urgent surgery for spinal metastasis. Of these, 289 patients were included who had sufficient information available. There were 31 re-operations performed (10.7%; mean age 60 years; 13M, 18F). Exclusion criteria included patients treated solely by radiotherapy, patients who had undergone surgery for spinal metastasis prior to the study period and those patients who had other causes for neurological dysfunction such as stroke. OUTCOME MEASURES: Revised Tokuhashi score, preoperative/postoperative Frankel scores and survival. METHODS: We performed an ambispective review of all patients treated surgically from our comprehensive database during the study period (October 2004-October 2012). We reviewed all patient records held on the database, including patient demographics and re-operation rates. RESULTS: During the 8 years' study period, there were 31 re-operations performed (10.7%; mean age 60 years; 13M, 18F) in the 289 patients. Re-operations were performed in the same admission in the majority of patients (20), whilst 11 patients had their second procedure in subsequent hospitalisation. The reasons for their revision surgery were as follows: Surgical Site Infection (SSI) [13/31, (42%)], failure of instrumentation [9/31, (29%)], local recurrence [5/31, (16%)], haematoma evacuation [2/31, (6%)] and others [2/31, (6%)]. When comparing the 'Single Surgery' and 'Revision Surgery' groups, we found that the median preoperative and postoperative Frankel scores were similar at grade 4 (range: 1- 5) for both groups (preoperative p= 0.92, postoperative p=0.87). However, 20 (8%) patients from the Single surgery group and 7 (23%) from the Revision group had a worse postoperative score and this was significantly different (p=0.01). No significant difference was found (p=0.66) in the revised Tokuhashi score. The median number of survival days was similar (p=0.719) - Single Surgery Group (250 days, range: 5- 2597) and Revision Group (215 days, range: 9-1352). CONCLUSION: There was a modest re-operation rate (10.7%) in our patients treated surgically for spinal metastases over an 8 year period. Most of these were for SSI (42%), failure of instrumentation (26%) and local recurrence (16%). Patients with metastatic disease could benefit from revision surgery with comparable median survival rates but relatively poorer neurological outcomes. This study may help to assist with informed decision making for this vulnerable patient group.
    Spine 01/2015; 15(3). DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.01.005 · 2.45 Impact Factor