RESUMEN
Purpose: Improper utilization of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis frequently leads to increased risks of morbidity and mortality.This study aims to understand the common causative organism of postoperative orthopedic infection and document the surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol across various institutions in to order to strengthen surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis practice and provide higher-quality surgical care. Methods: This multicentric multinational retrospective study, includes 24 countries from five different regions (Asia Pacific, South Eastern Africa, Western Africa, Latin America, and Middle East). Patients who developed orthopedic surgical site infection between January 2021 and December 2022 were included. Demographic details, bacterial profile of surgical site infection, and antibiotic sensitivity pattern were documented. Results: 2038 patients from 24 countries were included. Among them 69.7 % were male patients and 64.1 % were between 20 and 60 years. 70.3 % patients underwent trauma surgery and instrumentation was used in 93.5 %. Ceftriaxone was the most common preferred in 53.4 %. Early SSI was seen in 55.2 % and deep SSI in 59.7 %. Western Africa (76 %) and Asia-Pacific (52.8 %) reported a higher number of gram-negative infections whereas gram-positive organisms were predominant in other regions. Most common gram positive organism was Staphylococcus aureus (35 %) and gram-negative was Klebsiella (17.2 %). Majority of the organisms showed variable sensitivity to broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusion: Our study strongly proves that every institution has to analyse their surgical site infection microbiological profile and antibiotic sensitivity of the organisms and plan their surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis accordingly. This will help to decrease the rate of surgical site infection, prevent the emergence of multidrug resistance and reduce the economic burden of treatment.
RESUMEN
Background For the treatment of unstable thoracolumbar fractures, this study compared the results of short-segment fixation with fracture level inclusion (SSFIFL) with long-segment pedicle fixation (LSPF). Methodology In this prospective case series study conducted from January 2015 to January 2019, 80 patients with partial spinal cord lesions were investigated. For the comparison, two groups of 40 patients each were chosen and treated with SSFIFL and LSPF. The outcomes were measured using pre and postoperative radiological parameters and clinical parameters. The radiographic variables included the kyphotic angle with loss of correction, kyphotic deformation, and the Beck index. Mean blood loss, operative time, and cost-effectiveness were also examined for clinical indicators such as the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results There were no substantial variations between the groups regarding age or gender, trauma etiology, fracture level, or fracture pattern. Between the two categories, there appeared to be no notable change in radiological indicators such as kyphotic angle, kyphotic deformation, and Beck index at the end of follow-up (p = 0.120, 0.360, and 0.776, respectively). Both groups had similar neurological outcomes (p = 0.781). In terms of ODI and VAS, statistically, there was no discernible difference (p = 0.567 and 0.161, respectively). In this study, however, there was less surgical time, blood loss, and implant cost (p = 0.05). Conclusions When fracture level is included in a short-segment fixation, the radiological and clinical results are comparable to long-segment posterior fixation. Ultimately, this treatment has proven to be not only a motion segment-saving procedure but also cost-effective.
RESUMEN
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN PURPOSE: Compare intra and postoperative parameters, surgeons' satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness between general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) on patients undergoing surgery in the lumbar spine surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Surgery on the lumbar spine is the commonest surgical procedure among all spinal surgical practices. Both the GA and SA are shown to be suitable techniques for performing the surgery safely. GA is used most frequently. But, SA became increasingly more popular because it allows the patient to self-position thereby reducing various complications associated with GA in a prone position. METHODS: A total of 64 patients from June 2016 to July 2019 who underwent either discectomy, laminectomy, or lamino-foraminotomy for herniated lumbar disc or canal stenosis in 1 or 2 levels were included. During the study period, 32 patients were non-randomly selected for each of the GA and SA groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood loss, total anesthetic time, surgeons' satisfaction, analgesic requirements, cost of the procedure, and hospital stay were recorded and compared. RESULTS: In the context of demographic characteristics, baseline HR, or MAP, no significant differences were noted between SA and GA groups. Mean anesthetic time, mean PACU time, mean doses of analgesic requirement, cost of anesthesia, and the surgeon's satisfaction was significantly lower in the SA Group (P < 0.05). The blood loss, duration of operation, and hospital stay were not significant too. No major Intra and postoperative complications were reported nor were significant differences found in either series. CONCLUSION: Safety and efficacy of SA in comparison to GA were similar for the patients undergoing surgery on the lumbar spine. Notable advantages of SA include shorter anesthesia duration, fewer drug requirements, relative cost-effectiveness, and fewer complications rate. Successful surgery can be performed using either anesthesia type.