Management and outcome of spinal implant-associated surgical site infections in patients with posterior instrumentation: analysis of 176 cases.

PURPOSE: The management of implant-associated surgical site infections (SSI) in patients with posterior instrumentation is challenging. Evidence regarding the most appropriate treatment and the need for removal of implants is equivocal. We sought to evaluate the management and outcome of such patients at our institution. METHODS: We searched our prospectively documented databases for eligible patients with posterior spinal instrumentation, excluding the cervical spine (January 2008-June 2018). Patient files were reviewed, demographic data and treatment details were recorded. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) was assessed with the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients underwent 210 revisions for 176 SSIs. Two-thirds presented within four weeks (105/176, 59.7%, median 22.5d, 7d-11.1y). The most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 79/210, 37.6%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 56/210, 26.7%). Debridement and implant retention was performed in 135/210 (64.3%) revisions and partial replacement in 62/210 (29.5%). In 28/176 SSI (15.9%), persistent infection required multiple revisions (≤ 4). Surgery was followed by intravenous and oral antimicrobial treatment (10-12w). In 139/176 SSIs (79%) with ≥ 1y follow-up, infection was cured in 115/139 (82.7%); relapse occurred in 9 (relapse rate: 5.1%). Two patients (1.4%) died. COMI decreased significantly (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 4.8 ± 2.9, p < 0.0001) over 12 months. 72.7% of patients were (very) satisfied with their care. CONCLUSION: Patients with SSI after posterior (thoraco-)lumbo(-sacral) instrumentation can be successfully treated in most cases with surgical and specific antibiotic treatment. An interdisciplinary approach is recommended. Loose implants should be replaced. In some cases, multiple revisions may be necessary. Patient outcomes were satisfactory.

Surgical training in spine surgery: safety and patient-rated outcome.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in patient-reported outcomes and surgical complication rates between lumbar procedures carried out either by experienced board-certified spine surgeons (BCS) or by supervised spine surgery residents (RES) in a large Swiss teaching hospital. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively within the framework of the EUROSPINE Spine Tango Registry. It involved the data of 1415 patients undergoing first-time surgery in our institution between the years 2004 and 2016. Patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical procedure: lumbar single-level fusion (SLF), single-level decompression (SLD) for lumbar spinal stenosis and disc hernia procedures (DH). Patient-reported outcome measures (primary outcome) included the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively plus single items concerning satisfaction with care and global treatment outcome (GTO). Secondary outcomes included surgical variables such as blood loss, duration of surgery, complication rates and length of stay. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the RES and BCS patient groups for most of the demographic and baseline clinical variables with the exception of age in the SLD group (p = 0.012), BMI in the DH group (p = 0.02) and leg pain in the SLF group (p = 0.03). COMI scores improved significantly after all three types of procedure (p < 0.0001) without significant difference (p > 0.05) between the patients of RES and BCS. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between RES and BCS patients with regard to satisfaction and GTO. There were no significant differences between RES and BCS (p > 0.05) in the surgical or medical complication rates. CONCLUSION: In the given setting, surgical training of spine surgery residents under guided supervision by board-certified spine surgeons was shown to be safe, as it was not associated with greater morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, it had no detrimental influence on patient-reported outcomes. The findings can be used to give reassurance to prospective patients that are to be operated on by supervised spine surgery residents. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Patient-reported outcome of surgical treatment for lumbar spinal epidural lipomatosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is a rare condition characterized by an excessive accumulation of fat tissue in the spinal canal that can have a compressive effect, leading to clinical symptoms. This condition has a distinct pathology from spinal stenosis associated with degeneration of the intervertebral discs, ligaments, and facet joints. Several different conservative and surgical treatment strategies have been proposed for SEL, but its treatment remains controversial. There is a lack of evidence documenting the success of surgical decompression in SEL, and no previous studies have reported the postoperative outcome from the patient's perspective. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate patient-rated outcome after surgical decompression in SEL. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 22 patients (19 males; age: 68.2±9.9 years) who had undergone spine surgery for SEL were identified from our local Spine Surgery Outcomes Database, which includes a total of 10,028 spine surgeries recorded between 2005 and 2012. Inclusion criteria were epidural lipomatosis confirmed by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and subsequent decompression surgery without spinal fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) was used to assess patient-rated outcome. The COMI includes the domains pain (separate 0-10 scales for back and leg pain), back-specific function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life (QOL), work disability, and social disability. METHODS: The questionnaires were completed preoperatively and at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Surgical data were retrieved from the patient charts and from our local Spine Surgery Outcomes Database, which we operate in connection with the International Spine Tango Registry. Differences between pre- and postoperative scores were analyzed using paired t tests and repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: At 3-months follow-up, the COMI score and scores for leg pain and back pain had improved significantly compared with their preoperative values (p<.005). The mean decrease in COMI score after 3 months was 2.6±2.4 (range: -1.3 to 6.5) points: from 7.5±1.7 (range: 3.5-10) to 4.9±2.5 (range: 0.5-9.6). A total of 11 patients (50%) had an improvement of the COMI of more than the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score of 2.2 points. The mean decrease in leg pain after 3 months was 2.4±3.5 (-5 to 10) points. Overall, 17 patients (77.3%) reported a reduced leg pain, 12 (54.6%) of whom by at least the MCIC score of 2 points. The significant reductions from baseline in COMI and leg and back pain scores were retained up to 2 years postoperatively (p<.02). The general QOL item of the COMI improved significantly after surgery (p<.0001). Over 80% of the cohort rated their preoperative QOL as bad (n=13) or very bad (n=5), whereas 3 months after surgery, only 7 patients rated their QOL as bad, and one as very bad (36%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first to demonstrate that surgical decompression is associated with a statistically significant improvement in patient-rated outcome scores in patients with symptomatic SEL, with a clinically relevant change occurring in approximately half of them. Surgical decompression hence represents a reasonable treatment option for SEL, although the reason behind the less good response in some patients needs further investigation.