Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Spine Surgery: An International Survey of Clinical Practices Among Expert Spine Surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire-based survey. OBJECTIVES: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in spine surgery but universal guidelines for SSI prevention are lacking. The objectives of this study are to depict a global status quo on implemented prevention strategies in spine surgery, common themes of practice and determine key areas for future research. METHODS: An 80-item survey was distributed among spine surgeons worldwide via email. The questionnaire was designed and approved by an International Consensus Group on spine SSI. Consensus was defined as more than 60% of participants agreeing to a specific prevention strategy. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-two surgeons participated in the survey. Screening for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is not common, whereas preoperative decolonization is performed in almost half of all hospitals. Body mass index (BMI) was not important for surgery planning. In contrast, elevated HbA1c level and hypoalbuminemia were often considered as reasons to postpone surgery. Cefazoline is the common drug for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine is mainly used for skin disinfection. Double-gloving, wound irrigation, and tissue-conserving surgical techniques are routine in the operating room (OR). Local antibiotic administration is not common. Wound closure techniques and postoperative wound dressing routines vary greatly between the participating institutions. CONCLUSIONS: With this study we provide an international overview on the heterogeneity of SSI prevention strategies in spine surgery. We demonstrated a large heterogeneity for pre-, peri- and postoperative measures to prevent SSI. Our data illustrated the need for developing universal guidelines and for testing areas of controversy in prospective clinical trials.

Need of vascular surgeon and comparison of value for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in lateral decubitus: Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anterior lumbar approaches are recommended for clinical conditions that require interbody stability, spinal deformity corrections or a large fusion area. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus position (LatALIF) has gained progressive interest in the last years. The study aims to describe the current habit, the perception of safety and the perceptions of need of vascular surgeons according to experienced spine surgeons by comparing LatALIF to the standard L5-S1 supine ALIF (SupALIF). METHODS: A two-round Delphi method study was conducted to assess the consensus, within expert spine surgeons, regarding the perception of safety, the preoperative planning, the complications management and the need for vascular surgeons by performing anterior approaches (SupALIF vs LatALIF). RESULTS: A total of 14 experts voluntary were involved in the survey. From 82 sentences voted in the first round, a consensus was reached for 38 items. This included the feasibility of safe LatALIF without systematic involvement of vascular surgeon for routine cases (while for revision cases the involvement of the vascular surgeon is an appropriate option) and the appropriateness of standard MRI to evaluate the accessibility of the vascular window. Thirteen sentences reached the final consensus in the second round, whereas no consensus was reached for the remaining 20 statements. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi study collected the consensus on several points, such as the consolidated required experience on anterior approaches, the accurate study of vascular anatomy with MRI, the management of complications and the significant reduction of the surgical times of the LatALIF if compared to SupALIF in combined procedures. Furthermore, the study group agrees that LatALIF can be performed without the need for a vascular surgeon in routine cases.

20 Tips to Avoid and Handle Problems in the Placement of Percutaneous Pedicle Screws.

BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement is currently the most widely applied instrumentation for minimally invasive treatment of spinal injuries requiring stabilization. Although this technique has advantages over open instrumentation, it also presents new challenges and specific complications. The objective of this study was to provide recommendations developed from the experience of several spinal surgeons at different minimally invasive spine surgery reference centers to solve specific problems and prevent complications during the learning curve of this technique. METHODS: An AO Spine Latin America minimally invasive spine surgery study group analyzed the most frequent complications and challenges occurring during the placement of >14,000 two-dimensional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screws at different centers over 15 years. Twenty tips considered most relevant to performing this technique, excluding problems directly related to specific brands of instruments, were presented. RESULTS: The 20 tips included the following: (1) positioning; (2) clean and painless; (3) fewer x-rays; (4) check the clock; (5) beveled tip; (6) transverse-rib-pedicle; (7) double Jamshidi; (8) hammer the Kirschner wire; (9) bent tip; (10) too loose, too tight; (11) new trajectory; (12) manual control; (13) start over; (14) Kirschner wire first; (15) adhesive drape control; (16) bend the rod; (17) lower rods; (18) freehand inner; (19) posterior fusion; (20) revision. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of these tips might improve performance of this technique and reduce the complications related to percutaneous pedicle screw placement.

Development of a Curriculum for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (MISS).

The purpose of this review is to describe how a curriculum for minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) was developed and implemented. The authors discuss the curriculum roadmap, its target audience, and the educational process for teaching general skills and specific procedures in MISS. Initiated by AOSpine, a panel of experts within spinal surgery from multiple centers formed the minimally invasive spine surgery task force. Together, task force members redefined the standards and milestones of the MISS education and training. Therefore, we conclude that the MISS task force created a structured curriculum which will have a positive influence on daily practice for surgeons and patients worldwide.

Teaching Training and Surgical Education in Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) of the Spine: What Are the Best Teaching and Learning Strategies for MIS? Do We Have Any Experience and Data?

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review and transversal study. OBJECTIVE: Advances in new technologies give the surgeons confidence to manage complex spine conditions with a lower morbidity rate. This has changed the expectations of patients and medical payers and foreshadows the shift now underway: the use of minimally invasive techniques. The ethical considerations of learning directly on patients require a change in the education and training programs. METHODS: The education paradigm has changed, and surgical training on minimally invasive surgery of the spine (MISS) techniques should follow a "curriculum." The assessment of skill proficiency while learning the MISS techniques must be measurable to objectively show the performance gained over time and the changes that should be performed during training. Different strategies include "ex vivo" and "in vivo" training. RESULTS: We have worked on a curriculum in which the participants can perceive the growth in their knowledge through the different educational opportunities. There are 3 levels: basic, advanced, and masters. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an educational curriculum for MISS rationale and techniques, that showed to be effective and interesting in our region.

Access to Technology and Education for the Development of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Techniques in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate access to the technologies and education needed to perform minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) in Latin America. METHODS: We designed a questionnaire to evaluate surgeons' practice characteristics, access to different technologies, and training opportunities for MISS techniques. The survey was sent to members and registered users of AO Spine Latin from January 6-20, 2020. The major variables studied were nationality, specialty (orthopedics or neurosurgery), level of hospital (primary, secondary, tertiary), number of surgeries performed per year by the spine surgeon, types of spinal pathologies commonly managed, and number of MISS performed per year. Other variables involved specific access to different technologies: intraoperative fluoroscopy, percutaneous screws, cages, tubular retractors, microscopy, intraoperative computed tomography, neuronavigation imaging, and bone morphogenetic protein. Finally, participants were asked about main obstacles to performing MISS and their access to education on MISS techniques in their region. RESULTS: The questionnaires were answered by 306 members of AO Spine Latin America across 20 different countries. Most answers were obtained from orthopedic surgeons (57.8%) and those with over 10 years of experience (42.4%). Most of the surgeons worked in private practice (46.4%) and performed >50 surgeries per year (44.1%), but only 13.7% performed >50 MISS per year, mainly to manage degenerative pathologies (87.5%). Most surgeons always had access to fluoroscopy (79%). Only 26% always had access to percutaneous screws, 24% to tubular retractors, 34.3% to cages (anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion), and 43% to microscopy. Regarding technologies, 71% reported never having access to navigation, 83% computed tomography, and 69.3% bone morphogenetic protein. The main limitations expressed for widely used MISS technologies were the high implant costs (69.3%) and high navigation costs (49.3%). Most surgeons claimed access to online education activities (71%), but only 44.9% reported access to face-to-face events and 28.8% to hands-on activities, their limited access largely because the courses were expensive (62.7%) or few courses were available on MISS in their region (51.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons in Latin America have limited resources to perform MISS, even in private practice. The main constraints are implant costs, access to technologies, and limited face-to-face educational opportunities.

Neurosurgery versus orthopedic surgery: Who has better access to minimally invasive spinal technology?

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate differences in neurosurgeons versus orthopedists access to technologies needed to perform minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISS) in Latin America. METHODS: We sent a survey to members of AO Spine Latin America (January 2020), and assessed the following variables; nationality, level of hospital (primary, secondary, and tertiary), number of spinal operations performed per year, spinal pathologies addressed, the number of minimally invasive spine operations performed/year, and differences in access to MISS spinal technology between neurosurgeons and orthopedists. RESULTS: Responses were returned from 306 (25.6) members of AO Spine Latin America representing 20 different countries; 57.8% of respondents were orthopedic surgeons and 42.4% had over 10 years of experience. Although both specialties reported a lack of access to most of the technologies, the main difference between the two was greater utilization/access of neurosurgeons to operating microscope (e.g., 84% of the neurosurgeons vs. 39% of orthopedic spine surgeons). CONCLUSION: Although both specialties have limited access to MISS spinal technologies, orthopedic spine surgeons reported significantly lower access to operating microscopes versus neurosurgeons (P < 0.01).

Knowledge and Attitude Regarding Radiation Exposure Among Spine Surgeons in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgeons are exposed to high amounts of radiation from fluoroscopic procedures during their lifetime. In this study, we evaluated spine surgeons' knowledge of and attitude regarding radiation exposure during spine surgery. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire including questions about surgeons' characteristics and knowledge of and attitude regarding radiation exposure during spine surgery. A survey was performed with the members of AOSpine Latin America. The main variables studied were specialty, years of experience, surgeon's position during fluoroscopy, and practices to reduce the patient's and surgeon's radiation exposure during surgery. The results were analyzed and compared among different specialties, levels of experience, and countries of origin. RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 371 members of AOSpine Latin America from different countries. The sample was mostly from orthopedic surgeons (57.1%) and surgeons in practice for longer than 10 years (54.2%). Thyroid lead protection was used by 64.2% of the spine surgeons, lead glasses by 20.2%, and lead gloves by 7%. A dosimeter badge was never or only rarely used by 75.7%. The correct answer for surgeon position during lateral lumbar fluoroscopy was reported by only one-third of the surgeons. The reported rate of thyroid protector use was higher in surgeons from Brazil and Colombia compared with surgeons from Mexico and Argentina (P < 0.001), whereas the use of pulsed-mode fluoroscopy was higher in Mexico and Argentina compared with Brazil and Colombia (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts toward implementing educational programs in Latin America focused on safety strategies are needed to minimize intraoperative radiation exposure.