Management postoperativer Wundinfektionen nach Wirbelsäuleneingriffen: Erste Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen Studie

Negative versus natural drainage after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A prospective randomized study

Introduction

Despite of their extensive use, drains remain controversial without clear guidelines, and there is unclear evidence on drain use in spine procedures. Negative pressure drainage is theoretically more effective in preventing postoperative hematomas. On the contrary, it may result in excessive drainage and blood loss.The aim of this study was to compare the outcome between the uses of negative versus natural drainage in single level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Research question

The aim is to compare between negative versus natural drainage after single-level PLIF as regard to postoperative wound infection, wound healing, temperature, pain and neurological deficits.

Materials and methods

A prospective randomized study of consecutive PLIF patients at a single level for lumbar disc prolapse was performed between January 2019 and January 2020. The patients were randomly assigned to either the negative suction drainage group or natural drainage group. Negative suction was created by maximum compression of the reservoir to create negative pressure. In the other group, natural pressure drainage was kept without any negative pressure.Our study included a total of 62 patients who met the inclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups; 33 patients had negative suction drains and 29 patients had natural drainage. There were 32 female (51.6%) and 30 male (48.4%). Their ages ranged between of 23-69 years, with a mean age of 42.11 ​± ​8.89 years.

Results

Drainage volume was statistically higher in the negative group on the day of surgery (day 0) as well as the 1st and second days after. However, no significant differences were observed as regards to postoperative temperature, pain, wound infection, temperature, or neurological deficits.

Discussion &conclusion

In this prospective randomized study, our results revealed that natural drainage in short term can reduce the total amount of blood in the drain, and therefore the blood loss without significant differences in postoperative wound infection, wound healing, temperature, pain, or neurological deficits in single-level PLIF.

[Infections after reconstructive spinal interventions : How do I deal with them?]

BASICS

Postoperative surgical site infections of the spine have been described in up to 20% of patients and can result in serious consequences for the patient and substantial treatment costs. Typical bacteria often arise from skin or fecal flora. Various risk factors for infection have been described, including obesity, diabetes, high ASA scores, as well as intraoperative factors such as heavy blood loss, dural tears, or several revision procedures. Consequently, the prophylaxis with pre- and postoperative risk minimization is of particular importance.

TREATMENT

When an infection has developed, it is important to carry out early operative revision involving tissue debridement, lavage and acquiring microbiological samples for culture. If the infection presents early, the instrumentation can often be retained. Adjuvant measures such as negative pressure wound treatment may improve the outcome. In late-onset infections, due to the biofilm production on the instrument surface or in cases of implant loosening, one should attempt to remove the instrumentation, and in cases of instability replace it. This article deals with the current literature on the subject and provides an overview of the data with regard to peri- and postoperative infections.

Prognosis of deep infection in spinal surgery using implants, treated by retention, removal of bone graft and lengthy antibiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are complications that predispose to a high risk of unfavourable surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the SSI rate in this type of patients and their prognosis with similar treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective case series of 799 patients above 18 years old with spinal instrumentation surgery, between January 2010 and December 2014 in the traumatology and orthopaedic surgery department of our institution. All patients with SSIs were treated by debridement, graft replacement, retention of the instrumentation and lengthy courses of antimicrobial therapy. The patients were followed up for a period of 12 months.

RESULTS

Of all the patients with arthrodesis, 32 (4%) had spinal SSIs. Three patients were lost to follow-up. The final sample analyzed comprised 29 cases, with a median age of 54.9 years (IQR, 45.7-67 years) and a Charlson comorbidity index of 2.0 (IQR; 0-3). A microbiological diagnosis was obtained in 75.8% of the cases. Of these, the ISSs were monomicrobial in 68.2% and polymicrobial in 31.8%. Once treatment had been completed, 96% were cured without sequelae, and the rate of recurrence and reoperation was 4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment based on debridement, retention of the instrumentation, graft replacement and lengthy courses of antimicrobial therapy seems a very effective strategy in the treatment of patients with deep surgical site infection in spine surgery.