Clinical Efficacy of Epidural Injections of Local Anesthetic Alone or Combined with Steroid for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Does intraoperative wound irrigation with diluted povidone-iodine prevent surgical site infection in spine surgery?

Purpose

This study employed meta-analysis to evaluate whether the application of intraoperative wound irrigation (IOWI) with povidone-iodine (PI) in spine surgery effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI).

Methods

The present study was conducted strictly following the methodological guidance provided by the Cochrane Handbook. The protocol of this work was registered with PROSPERO. Two researchers independently conducted electronic searches in Medline via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The bias risk of each included study was evaluated by two assessors. We performed statistical analysis on the dataset using STATA software.

Results

Fourteen studies involving a total of 6777 patients were included in the present work. The risk of bias of six included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was considered as low-to-moderate risk, and the quality scores of the eight included retrospective cohort studies were rated as high quality. The results of this meta-analysis indicated a significant difference in the incidence of postoperative SSI between the two groups (RR = 0.29, 95% CI: (0.18, 0.47)). Moreover, patients who underwent IOWI with PI had lower rates of deep and superficial infections after spine surgery compared with the controlled group (superficial infection: RR = 0.28, 95%CI: (0.14, 0.54); Deep infection: RR = 0.24, 95%CI: (0.10, 0.60)). The sensitivity analysis results indicated good robustness and high evidence strength after data consolidation in the overall rate of postoperative SSI and the incidence of deep/superficial infection.

Conclusions

IOWI with PI solution during spinal surgery can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative SSI.

Effectiveness of lumbar braces after lumbar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically analyze the effectiveness of lumbar braces in patients after lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

The databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), were searched to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-series or case-control studies on the use of lumbar braces after lumbar spine surgery. The two authors independently assessed the quality of the included study and extracted the data. The statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software.

RESULTS

9 English papers and 1 Chinese paper were included in the present work, involving a total of 2646 patients (2181 in the experimental group and 465 in the control group). The differences in preoperative VAS, postoperative VAS, preoperative ODI, postoperative ODI, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and surgical comparison were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, postoperative surgical site infection incidence was lower in the lumbar brace group than those without lumbar brace (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Whether or not the use of lumbar braces after lumbar fixation has a negligible impact on clinical outcomes was studied. Subsequent studies could further demonstrate whether the use of lumbar braces after lumbar surgery could reduce the incidence of surgical site infections.

[Injection treatment for cervical and lumbar syndromes : Special infiltration techniques]

Minimally invasive injection treatment is indicated particularly in cases of treatment-resistant, painful degenerative alterations of the cervical and lumbar spine, intervertebral disc displacement and radicular syndrome. Through the injections and the supplementation with further conservative, e.g., physical therapy and activating measures, the vicious circle of neural irritation and muscle tension and sympathetic nerve reactions can be interrupted.