Intravenous lidocaine in spine surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the role of intravenous lidocaine as a supplemental pain control modality in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the use of supplemental intravenous lidocaine in spine surgery. We developed a comprehensive search strategy to adequately screen for randomized controlled trials involving intravenous lidocaine in spine surgery. Continuous outcomes included postoperative opiate consumption and postoperative pain scores. Dichotomous outcomes included nausea, vomiting, pneumonia, delirium, and wound infection. RESULTS: A total of 3 RCTs comprising 235 patients were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Cumulative morphine consumption at 48 h was not statistically significant between lidocaine and control groups. Postoperative pain was not statistically significant at any measured time points in the first and second day postoperatively. There was no statistical difference in postoperative complications including nausea, vomiting, pneumonia, delirium, or surgical site infection. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that current literature does not support the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunctive measure of pain management after spine surgery. Given the relatively few numbers of studies in this field, further randomized controlled trials are needed to make a definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of lidocaine in spine surgery patients.

Intra-Wound Antibiotics and Infection in Spine Fusion Surgery: A Report from Washington State's SCOAP-CERTAIN Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) after spine surgery is classified as a "never event" by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Intra-wound antibiotics (IWA) have been proposed to reduce the incidence of SSI, but robust evidence to support its use is lacking. METHODS: Prospective cohort undergoing spine fusion at 20 Washington State hospitals (July 2011 to March 2014) participating in the Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (Spine SCOAP) linked to a discharge tracking system. Patient, hospital, and operative factors associated with SSI and IWA use during index hospitalizations through 600 days were analyzed using a random effects logistic model (index), and a time-to-event analysis (follow-up) using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: A total of 9,823 patients underwent cervical (47%) or lumbar (53%) procedures (mean age, 58; 54% female) with an SSI rate of 1.1% during index hospitalization. Those with SSI were older, more often had diabetes mellitus, and more frequently underwent lumbar (versus cervical) fusion compared with those without SSI (all p < 0.01). Unadjusted rates of SSI during index hospitalization were lower in patients who received IWA (0.8% versus 1.5%). After adjustment for patient, hospital, and operative factors, no benefit was observed in those receiving IWA (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-1.03). At 12 mo, unadjusted rates of SSI were 2.4% and 3.0% for those who did and did not receive antibiotics; after adjustment there was no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% CI: 0.62-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas unadjusted analyses indicate a nearly 50% reduction in index SSI using IWA, we did not observe a statistically significant difference after adjustment. Despite its size, this study is underpowered to detect small but potentially relevant improvements in rates of SSI. It remains to be determined if IWA should be promoted as a quality improvement intervention. Concerns related to bias in the use of IWA suggest the benefit of a randomized trial.

Use of lateral access in the treatment of the revision spine patient.

With the rate of spinal surgery increasing, we have seen a concomitant increase in the number of revision cases. It is, therefore, important to have a systematic approach to the management of these complicated patients with unique problems. A thorough understanding of the different pathologies affecting revision spine patients is critical to an effective treatment recommendation. Lateral access is a useful management approach since it can avoid the complications of operating through previous approaches. Furthermore, it possesses certain advantages for treatment in specific circumstances outlined in this paper. Long-term studies are needed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the lateral approach compared to the anterior and posterior approaches in the treatment of revision spine patients.