One or Two Drains for the Treatment of Surgical Site Infections After Lumbar Spine Surgery

Closed-suction drainage in thoracolumbar spinal surgery-clinical routine without evidence? a systematic review

PURPOSE

The considered benefit of surgical drain use after spinal surgery is to prevent local accumulation of a haematoma by decompressing the closed space in the approach of the surgical site. In this context, the aim of the present systematic review was to prove the benefit of the routine use of closed-suction drains.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist and algorithm.

RESULTS

Following the literature search, 401 potentially eligible investigations were identified. Eventually, a total of 24 studies with 8579 participants were included. Negative suction drainage led to a significantly higher volume of drainage fluid. Drainage duration longer than 72 h may be associated with a higher incidence of Surgical side infections (SSI); however, accompanying antibiotic treatment is unnecessary. Regarding postoperative haematoma and neurological complications, no evidence exists concerning their prevention. Hospital stay length and related costs may be elevated in patients with drainage but appear to depend on surgery type.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to the existing literature, the use of closed-suction drainage in elective thoracolumbar spinal surgery is not associated with any proven benefit for patients and cannot decrease postoperative complications.

Incidences and reasons of postoperative surgical site infection after lumbar spinal surgery: a large population study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidences of postoperative acute surgical site infection (SSI) after lumbar spinal surgery and its possible reasons in our hospital during the past 9 years.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study with a large sample size. The medical records of all included patients were reviewed, and patients with acute SSI were identified. The incidence and possible reasons of SSI were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 7240 patients who underwent posterior lumbar spinal surgery were included in this study, and the total incidence of postoperative SSI was 1.53% (111/7240). Gram-negative bacteria were found to be dominant in postoperative wound infections after lumbar spinal surgery. And Escherichia coli were the most common pathogen in patients with SSI. The rate of postoperative SSI following lumbar spinal surgery was increased at first and then decreased during the past 9 years. Additionally, from 2011 to 2014, it was mainly deep infection in these patients, and then was mainly superficial infection from 2015 to 2019. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis had the highest incidence of postoperative SSI (2.39%, P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference for the number of SSI cases among different surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Based on a large population analysis, Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogen in postoperative SSI after lumbar spinal surgery. And patients with lumbar spinal stenosis had the highest incidence of SSI. Increasing the intervention of Gram-negative may be an important step to reduce the postoperative SSI after lumbar spinal surgery.

Surgical Site Infection Prophylaxis and Wound Management in Spine Surgery

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a potentially devastating complication of spinal surgery that increases patient morbidity and healthcare costs. SSIs have complex and multifactorial etiologies; therefore, there are numerous opportunities for prevention and risk mitigation. The aim of this narrative review was to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of SSIs in spine surgery with an emphasis on postoperative wound care. We list and describe the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative evidence-based interventions that can be applied to potentially prevent SSI after spinal surgery.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Closed Suction Irrigation System in the Treatment of Deep Surgical Site Infection After Lumbar Surgery

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of a closed suction irrigation system (CSIS) and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for deep surgical site infection (SSI) after lumbar surgery with instrumentation.

METHODS

We included 31 patients (NPWT group, n =16; CSIS group, n = 15) with deep SSIs after lumbar surgery with instrumentation from 2007 to 2017. The medical records were reviewed and patient characteristics, laboratory results, infection details, and treatment interventions were recorded. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and Oswestry disability index were used to assess pain and functional outcomes preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The cost of SSIs were compared between the NPWT and CSIS groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in the baseline characteristic data between the NPWT and CSIS groups. Implants were retained in all patients in the CSIS group, but required removal from 2 patients with late infections in the NPWT group. The average hospital stay was 36.8 ± 10.5 days and 33.4 ± 18.9 days in the NPWT and CSIS groups, respectively. The cost was greater in the NPWT group than in the CSIS group. Both NPWT and CSIS significantly reduced the Oswestry disability index and improved the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, but no significant difference was found between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have shown that both NPWT and CSIS are efficient techniques for the management of deep SSI after lumbar surgery with instrumentation. CSIS was more economical and the NPWT system was portable and easier for postoperative nursing care.