Perioperative Infection Prophylaxis with Vancomycin is a Significant Risk Factor for Deep Surgical Site Infection in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cefazolin versus vancomycin for perioperative infection prophylaxis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The relative efficacy of cefazolin alternatives for perioperative infection prophylaxis is poorly understood. METHODS: This study was a single-center multi-surgeon retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary spine surgery from an institutional registry. Postoperative infection was defined by the combination of three criteria: irrigation and debridement within 3 months of the index procedure, clinical suspicion for infection, and positive intraoperative cultures. Microbiology records for all infections were reviewed to assess the infectious organism and organism susceptibilities. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 10,122 patients met inclusion criteria. The overall incidence of infection was 0.78%, with an incidence of 0.73% in patients who received cefazolin and 2.03% in patients who received vancomycin (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.35-5.91, P-0.004). Use of IV vancomycin (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.35-5.91, P=0.006), BMI (MD 1.56, 95% CI 0.32-2.79, P=0.014), presence of a fusion (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.52, P=0.033), and operative time (MD 42.04, 95% CI 16.88-67.21, P=0.001) were significant risk factors in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, only non-cefazolin antibiotics (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.18-5.22, P=0.017) and BMI (MD 1.56, 95% CI 0.32-2.79, P=0.026) remained significant independent risk factors. Neither IV antibiotic regimen nor topical vancomycin significantly impacted Gram type, organism type, or antibiotic resistance (P>0.05). The most common reason for antibiosis with vancomycin was a penicillin allergy (75.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antibiosis with IV vancomycin leads to a 2.5-times higher risk of infection compared to IV cefazolin in primary spine surgery. We recommend the routine use of IV cefazolin for infection prophylaxis, and caution against the elective use of alternative regimens like IV vancomycin unless clinically warranted.

Trends in Outpatient Cervical Spine Surgery: Are There Emerging Disparities?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to (1) assess disparities in relative utilization of outpatient cervical spine surgery between White and Black patients from 2010 to 2019 and (2) to measure how these racial differences have evolved over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although outpatient spine surgery has become increasingly popularized over the last decade, it remains unknown how racial disparities in surgical utilization have translated to the outpatient setting and whether restrictive patterns of access to outpatient cervical spine procedures may exist. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2019 was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Relative utilization of outpatient (same-day discharge) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (OP-ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (OP-CDR) were assessed and trended over time between races. Multivariable regressions were subsequently utilized to adjust for baseline patient factors and comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo OP-ACDF or OP-CDR surgery when compared with White patients ( P <0.03 for both OP-ACDF and OP-CDR). From 2010 to 2019, a persisting disparity over time was found in outpatient utilization for both ACDF and CDR ( e.g. White vs. Black OP-ACDF: 6.0% vs. 3.1% in 2010 compared with 16.7% vs. 8.5% in 2019). These results held in all adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting racial disparities in outpatient spine surgery and demonstrates an emerging disparity in outpatient cervical spine utilization among Black patients. These restrictive patterns of access to same-day outpatient hospital and surgery centers may contribute to broader disparities in the overall utilization of major spine procedures that have been previously reported. Renewed interventions are needed to both understand and address these emerging inequalities in outpatient care before they become more firmly established within our orthopedic and neurosurgery spine delivery systems.

Evaluation of Current Trends in Treatment of Single-level Cervical Radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this study were to identify epidemiological trends, differences, and complications in patients undergoing surgical treatment for single-level cervical radiculopathy (SLCR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SLCR that fails nonoperative management is effectively treated with either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF). Although studies have shown that all 3 options are clinically effective, trends in usage, differences in patient population, and differences in complications remain unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either ACDF, CDR, or PCF in the treatment of SLCR from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Demographic data consisted of sex, age, ASA class, body mass index, and inpatient/outpatient status. Complications included surgical site infection, pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, readmissions, reoperations, operating time, and hospital length of stay. Utilization trends by year among the 3 procedures were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1102 patients with SLCR treated with single-level ACDF, CDR, or PCF were identified in NSQIP from 2010 to 2016. There was a relative increase in the number of CDR procedures (7.7%-16.1%) and a corresponding decrease in PCF procedures (20.3%-10.6%) without a significant effect on ACDF procedures (72.0%-73.3%). Patients who underwent CDR were younger and in a lower ASA class than those undergoing ACDF or PCF. Patients undergoing PCF were more likely to be treated as an outpatient. PCF procedures also had the shortest operating time and hospital length of stay. There were no significant differences in complications among the 3 procedures. Moreover, there were no significant trends in demographics or outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: ACDF remains the most common surgical treatment for patients with SLCR, and its utilization has remained consistent. Meanwhile, the increased utilization of CDR for the treatment of SLCR has resulted in a corresponding decrease in the utilization of PCF.