Perioperative Catheter Use as a Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infection After Cervical Surgery: An Analysis of 39,893 Patients

Factors associated with surgical site infection in myocardial revascularization: a retrospective longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES

to analyze the influence of sociodemographic and clinical variables, as well as the surgical checklist adherence score, on the occurrence of surgical site infection among patients undergoing myocardial revascularization.

METHODS

an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study was conducted at a university hospital, involving 266 medical records of patients who underwent myocardial revascularization surgery. Instruments containing sociodemographic, clinical, and infection-related variables were used, along with the Perioperative Surgical Safety Checklist. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were employed.

RESULTS

surgical site infection occurred in 89 (33.5%) patients. There was a statistically significant association between body temperature outside the range of 36 degrees Celsius to 36.5 degrees Celsius (p=0.01), the presence of invasive devices (p=0.05), surgical procedures with the anticipation of critical events (p<0.001), and the occurrence of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

body temperature, the presence of invasive devices, and surgical procedures with the anticipation of critical events were significant factors contributing to an increased risk of infection.

Incidence of surgical site infections after cervical spine surgery: results of a single-center cohort study adhering to multimodal preventive wound control protocol

PURPOSE

The incidence of surgical site infections is considered a relevant indicator of perioperative and postoperative care quality. The aim of this study is to analyze and evaluate SSIs after elective cervical spine surgery under the guidance of our preventive multimodal wound protocol.

METHODS

A monocentric observational cohort study analyzed 797 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery from 2005 to 2010 (mean age 51.58 ± 11.74 year, male 56.09%, mean BMI 26.87 ± 4.41, ASA score 1-2 in 81.68% of patients), fulfilling the entry criteria: (1) cervical spine surgery performed by neurosurgeons (degenerative disease 85.19%, trauma 11.04%, tumor 3.76%), (2) elective surgery, (3) postoperative care in our neurointensive care unit. Our preventive wound control protocol management focused mainly on antibiotic prophylaxis, wound hygiene regime, and drainage equipment. All wound complications and surgical site infections were monitored up for 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

We had only 2 (0.25%) patients with SSI after cervical spine surgery-one organ/space infection (osteomyelitis, primary due to liquorrhea) after anterior surgical approach, and one deep surgical site infection (due to dehiscence) after posterior approach. We had 17 (2.13%) patients with some wound complications (secretion 7, dehiscence 4, hematoma 1, edema 3, and liquorrhea 2) that were not classified as SSI according to the CDC guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Concerning our study population of patients undergoing elective cervical surgery, with ASA scores 1-2 in 81.68% of our patients, the incidence of SSI was 0.14% after anterior surgical approach, 1.4% after posterior surgical approach, and 0.25% altogether in the referred cohort.

A Randomized Study on the Prophylactic Use of Acetaminophen to Prevent Fever after the Removal of Drainage Tubes for Lumbar Surgery

BACKGROUND

Many inpatients encounter a fever in the first 24 h after drainage removal. It is costly to exclude the possibility of deep infection and cultures usually fail to identify the etiology. We hypothesize that the fever is caused by a normal inflammatory response and tested whether the prophylactic use of acetaminophen could reduce the fever rate.

METHODS

This was a prospectively randomized clinical trial performed from July 2019 to January 2020. A total of 183 consecutive patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery were prospectively randomized into two groups. Ninety-one patients were randomized into the study group; they received oral acetaminophen before removal of the drainage tubes and a second dose at 8 p.m. on the same day. The remaining 92 patients were placed in the control group, and they were given routine treatment without acetaminophen. The two groups were compared for differences in age, sex, height, weight, BMI, surgical segments, surgical time, blood loss, blood transfusion, ASA score, duration of drainage, total volume of the drainage, variation of WBC and CRP, hospital stay after the removal of the drainage tube and the rate of fever. Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the continuous data, while the chi-square test was used for the analysis of the ranked data.

RESULTS

Regarding the comparisons of basic information, there were no significant differences between the two groups for age, height, weight, BMI, surgical segments, surgical time, blood loss, blood transfusion, total drainage volume, duration of drainage, hospital stay, WBC, and CRP variation or the duration of hospital stay after removal of the drainage tube (all p > 0.05). However, the fever rate was significantly different (p = 0.006), and the fever rate of the study group (14/91, 15.38%) was significantly lower than that of the control group (30/92, 32.61%). In the study group, there were no complications related to the use of acetaminophen during the hospital stay or during the outpatient follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Fever after removal of tube drainage is caused by a normal inflammatory response, and a small dose of acetaminophen could significantly reduce the possibility of fever.

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.