Differences in sacral neuromodulation device infection rates based on preoperative antibiotic selection
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Introduction and hypothesis
After SNM implantation the most significant complication that can occur is wound infection, which typically requires removal of all components. Such infections have been reported in 5–11 % of patients, but little is known about risk factors. The objective of this analysis is to determine our postoperative wound infection rate after SNM implantation, and examined various potential predictive factors. Our hypothesis is that perioperative antibiotic selection is related to the risk of infections.
A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent SNM implantation by one of three surgeons from 2007 to 2010. Preoperative antibiotics were administered according to surgeon preference, and included cefazolin alone, vancomycin alone, or vancomycin with gentamicin. Predictors of wound infection were evaluated using multivariate techniques. Variables examined included preoperative antibiotic regimen, surgeon, location (outpatient surgery center vs university hospital), gender, comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression and smoking), history of urinary tract infections, and preoperative skin preparation.
A total of 136 patients underwent SNM implantation, and 8 (5.9 %) experienced infections that required device explantation. Cefazolin alone was less effective in preventing infection compared with the other antibiotic regimens (p = 0.03). The odds of having an infection in cefazolin-treated patients was 7.3 times that of other patients treated with another antibiotic regimen. Seven out of the eight infections with explant grew Staphylococcus aureus resistant to cephalosporins. None of the other variables proved to be a statistically significant contributor.
Preoperative antibiotic selection was a significant factor in preventing subsequent infection and explantation following SNM placement.
- Siegel SW (1992) Management of voiding dysfunction with an implantable neuroprosthesis. Urol Clin N Am 19(1):163–170
- Dijkema HE, Weil EH, Mijs PT et al (1993) Neuromodulation of sacral nerves for incontinence and voiding dysfunctions. Clinical results and complications. Eur Urol 24(1):72–76
- Bosch JL, Groen J (1995) Sacral (S3) segmental nerve stimulation as a treatment for urge incontinence in patients with detrusor instability: results of chronic electrical stimulation using an implantable neural prosthesis. J Urol 154(2 Pt 1):504–507
- Weil EH, Ruiz Cerda JL, Eerdmans PH et al (1998) Clinical results of sacral neuromodulation for chronic voiding dysfunction using unilateral sacral foramen electrodes. World J Urol 16(5):313–321 CrossRef
- FDA. Medical devices: device approvals and clearances. (2011) Medtronic® InterStim® Therapy System–P080025. www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm249208.htm. Accessed 10 May 2011
- Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Amundsen CL (2010) Efficacy and adverse events of sacral nerve stimulation for overactive bladder: a systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn 29:S18–S23 CrossRef
- Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Madersbacher H et al (2008) Safety of prolonged sacral neuromodulation tined lead testing. Curr Med Res Opin 24(20):343–347 CrossRef
- Huwyler M, Gustav K, Burkhard F et al (2009) Microbiological tined-lead examination: does prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing induce infection? BJU Int 104(5):646–650 CrossRef
- Wexner SD, Hull T, Yair E et al (2010) Infection rates in a large investigational trial of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1081–1089 CrossRef
- Guralnick ML, Benouni S, O’Connor RC et al (2007) Characteristics of infections in patients undergoing staged implantation of sacral nerve stimulation. Urology 69(6):1073–1076 CrossRef
- American Urological Association (2008) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. http://www.auanet.org/content/media/antimicroprop08.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2012
- Rudiger J, Thomson S (2011) Infection rate of spinal cord stimulators after a screening trial period. A 53-month third party follow-up. Neuromodulation 14(2):136–141 CrossRef
- Sillay KA, Larson PS, Starr PA (2008) Deep brain stimulator hardware-related infections: incidence and management in a large series. Neurosurgery 62(2):360–366 CrossRef
- Piacentino M, Pilleri M, Bartolomei L (2011) Hardware-related infections after deep brain stimulation surgery: review of incidence, severity and management in 212 single-center procedures in the first year after implantation. Acta Neurochir 153(12):2337–2341 CrossRef
- Bhatia R, Dalton A, Richards M, Hopkins C, Aziz T, Nandi D (2011) The incidence of deep brain stimulator hardware infection: the effect of change in antibiotic prophylaxis regimen and review of the literature. Br J Neurosurg 25(5):625–631 CrossRef
- Interstim and Interstim II Implant Manual (2012) http://professional.medtronic.com/wcm/groups/mdtcom_sg/@mdt/@neuro/documents/documents/sns-is3058-23-impmanl.pdf. Accessed November 2012
- Differences in sacral neuromodulation device infection rates based on preoperative antibiotic selection
International Urogynecology Journal
Volume 24, Issue 12 , pp 2081-2085
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer London
- Additional Links
- Antibiotic prophylaxis
- Device removal
- Sacral neuromodulation
- Surgical wound infection
- Industry Sectors