Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Removal of Spinal Instrumentation Is Not Required to Successfully Treat Postoperative Wound Infections in Most Cases.
Patel, Viral; Mueller, Ben; Mehbod, Amir A; Pinto, Manuel R; Schwender, James D; Garvey, Timothy A; Dawson, John M; Perra, Joseph H.
Afiliação
  • Patel V; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Mueller B; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Mehbod AA; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Pinto MR; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Schwender JD; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Garvey TA; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Dawson JM; Research, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
  • Perra JH; Orthopedic Surgery, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, USA.
Cureus ; 16(3): e56380, 2024 Mar.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38633938
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Controversy exists regarding whether spinal implants need to be removed to treat postoperative deep wound infections (DWIs). This retrospective study aimed to determine whether the removal or retention of implants impacts the successful treatment of a DWI after spine surgery.

METHODS:

Postoperative spine surgery patients presenting with signs of infection who underwent irrigation and debridement (I&D) at Twin Cities Spine Surgeons at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minnesota, USA, were studied. First, the persistence of infection when implants were retained or removed was assessed. Second, we analyzed the persistence of infection with respect to the number of I&D, the use of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) treatment, pseudoarthrosis status, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS:

One hundred thirty-five patients were included. Treatment of infection with retention of implants occurred in 64% (87/135); of these, 7% (6/87) had a persistent infection. Of patients with implant removal (36%, 48/135), 6% (3/48) had a persistent infection. Thus, we observed no difference between treatment with implants present compared to implants removed (p = 1.0). Fifty of the 135 patients (37%) received I&D and primary wound closure, and 85 (63%) patients received I&D and VAC treatment. There was no statistical difference between primary wound closure and VAC treatment (p = 0.15) with respect to persistence. Repeat I&D with VAC (three or more times) had a significantly lower rate of recurrence than those with two I&Ds. Pseudoarthrosis and persistent infection were unrelated. At minimum one-year follow-up, achieving a minimum clinically important difference in functional outcome was independent of persistent infection status.

CONCLUSION:

Persistent infection was unrelated to the retention of implants. When VAC treatment was deemed necessary, more than two I&Ds resulted in a significantly better cure for infection. Those with a persistent infection were no more likely to exhibit pseudoarthrosis than those with no persistent infection. All patients showed improvement in functional outcomes at minimum one-year follow-up.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cureus Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cureus Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos