The association of preoperative TNF-alpha inhibitor use and reoperation rates in spinal fusion surgery

Effect of tumour necrosis factor-a inhibitors exposure on surgical site infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis investigation was executed to evaluate the effect of tumour necrosis factor-a inhibitor exposure on surgical site infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. A comprehensive literature investigation till October 2023 was applied, and 82 470 individuals with orthopaedic surgery were in the chosen investigations' starting point. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was utilized to compute the value of the effect of tumour necrosis factor-a inhibitors exposure on surgical site infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. Tumour necrosis factor uses had significantly higher surgical site infections (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.25, p = 0.001) compared with tumour necrosis factor non-use in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. However, no significant difference was found between discontinued and continued tumour necrosis factor on surgical site infections (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-1.05, p = 0.07) in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery.Significantly higher surgical site infections was found comparing tumour necrosis factor uses to non-use; however, no significant difference was found between discontinued and continued tumour necrosis factor on surgical site infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.

The Effect of Perioperative Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs on the Risk of Postoperative Complications: Surgical Site Infection, Delayed Wound Healing, and Disease Flares Following Orthopaedic Surgical Procedures

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective in treating inflammatory diseases and have been increasingly utilized over the past decade. Patients who receive bDMARDs have been shown to be at an increased risk for surgical site infection following surgical procedures. The severe consequences of infection following orthopaedic surgery have led to the practice of withholding bDMARDs perioperatively; however, there has been no definitive evidence showing a clear benefit of withholding the use of bDMARDs, and in doing so, patients may be at an increased risk for higher disease activity. As such, the purpose of the present study was to compare the risk of infection, delayed wound healing, and disease flares associated with the use of bDMARDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgical procedures.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed CENTRAL databases for studies comparing continuing and withholding the use of bDMARDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures. Inclusion criteria were established following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) approach: Population = patients who underwent orthopaedic surgical procedures and who were taking bDMARDs. Intervention = withholding the use of bDMARDs. Comparator = continuing the use of bDMARDs. Outcomes = surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, and disease flares. Article titles and abstracts were screened prior to review of the full text. Overall odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pooled effects were calculated.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, providing data for 7,344 patients, including 2,385 patients who continued and 4,959 who withheld their bDMARDs perioperatively. Continuing bDMARDs was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease flares (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.95; p = 0.04) and nonsignificant increases in surgical site infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; p = 0.49) and wound complications (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.48 to 9.85; p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review highlights the limited evidence supporting the current practice of stopping bDMARDs perioperatively. These findings suggest that patients may not be at an increased risk for developing infection or wound complications if bDMARDs are continued but are at an increased risk for disease flare if bDMARDs are withheld. However, our conclusions are limited by the retrospective and heterogenous nature of the data, and possibly by a lack of study power.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Perioperative management of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients undergoing elective spine surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In preparation for surgery, patients being treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended to either continue or withhold therapy perioperatively. Some of these drugs have known effects against bone healing, hence the importance of adequately managing them before and after surgery.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the current evidence for managing conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs in the perioperative period for elective spine surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of four databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The included manuscripts were methodically scrutinized for quality, postoperative infections, wound healing characteristics, bone fusion rates, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified describing the management of conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs. There were 294 DMARD-treated patients described undergoing various spine surgeries such as craniovertebral junction fusions. Three of the studies involved exclusive continuation of DMARDs in the perioperative window; one study involved exclusive discontinuation of DMARDs in the perioperative window; and two studies involved continuation or discontinuation of DMARDs perioperatively. Of patients that continued DMARDs in the perioperative period, 13/50 patients (26.0%) had postoperative surgical site infections or wound dehiscence, 2/19 patients (10.5%) had delayed wound healing, and 32/213 patients (15.0%) had secondary revision surgeries. A fusion rate of 14/19 (73.6%) was described in only one study for patients continuing DMARDs perioperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The available published data may suggest a higher risk of wound healing concerns and lower than average bone fusion, although this may be under-reported given the current state of the literature.

[Reasons analysis on unplanned reoperation of degenerative lumbar spine diseases]

Objective

To review the research on the reasons of unplanned reoperation (URP) for degenerative lumbar spine diseases, and to provide new ideas for improving the quality of surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases.

Methods

The literature about the URP of degenerative lumbar spine diseases at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed and analyzed.

Results

At present, the reasons for URP include surgical site infection (SSI), hematoma formation, cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CSFL), poor results of surgery, and implant complications. SSI and hematoma formation are the most common causes of URP, which happen in a short time after surgery; CSFL also occurs shortly after surgery but is relatively rare. Poor surgical results and implant complications occurred for a long time after surgery. Factors such as primary disease and surgical procedures have an important impact on the incidence of URP.

Conclusion

The main reasons for URP are different in various periods after lumbar spine surgery. Interventions should be given to patients with high-risk URP, which thus can reduce the incidence of URP and improve the surgery quality and patients' satisfaction.