Postoperative wound infection after posterior spinal instrumentation: analysis of long-term treatment outcomes
- 1.7k Downloads
Postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII) places patients at risk for pseudarthrosis, correction loss, spondylodiscitis, adverse neurological sequelae, and even death; however, prognostic factors that predict long-term treatment outcomes have not been clearly investigated. In addition, few studies concerning the feasibility of reconstructing the failed spinal events have been published.
We performed a cohort study of 51 patients who contracted PSII in the posterolateral thoracolumbar region at a single tertiary center between March 1997 and May 2007. Forty-seven patients (92.2 %) had one or more medical problems. Isolated bacterial species, infection severity, treatment timing, and hosts’ defense response were evaluated to assess their relationship with management outcomes. The use of implant salvage, or removal subsequent with a revision strategy depended on the patient’s general conditions, infection control, and implant status for fusion.
The most common infective culprit was Staphylococcus spp. found in 35 of 60 (58.3 %) isolates, including 20 methicillin-resistant species. Gram-negative bacilli and polymicrobial infection were found significantly in patients presenting early-onset, deep-site infection and myonecrosis. Prompt diagnosis and aggressive therapy were responsible for implant preservation in 41 of 51 cases (80.4 %), while implant removal noted in 10 cases (19.6 %) was attributed to delayed treatment and uncontrolled infection with implant loosening, correction loss, or late infection with spondylodesis. The number of employed debridements alone was not significantly correlated with successful implant preservation. Delayed treatment for infection >3 months significantly led to implant removal (p < 0.05) and a higher number of failed spinal events. Patients with significant comorbidities, malnutrition, severe trauma, neurological deficits, long-level instrumentation, and delayed treatment had poor outcomes. Sixteen patients (31.4 %) exhibited probable nonunion or pseudarthrosis, and eight symptomatic patients among them underwent successful revision surgery.
Retention of the mechanically sound implants in early-onset infection permits fusion to occur, while delayed treatment, severe malnutrition and multiple comorbidities will most likely result in a lack of effectiveness in eradicating the infecting pathogens. Restoring optimal physiological conditions is imperative in high-risk patients to allow for further healing. When loosened screws cause peridiscal erosion and incapacitating motion pain, premature implant removal possibly results in failed fusion and correction loss. Reconstruction for a failed spinal event is feasible following infection control.
KeywordsPostoperative spinal implant infection Spondylodiscitis Pseudarthrosis Screw peridiscal erosion
The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits of a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.
Conflict of interest
Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
- 2.Heller JG, Garfin SR (1990) Postoperative infection of the spine. Semin Spine Surg 2:268–282Google Scholar
- 12.Picada R, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Perra JH (2000) Postoperative deep wound infection in adult after posterior lumbosacral spine fusion with instrumentation: incidence and management. J Spinal Disord 13:42–45. doi: 10.1097/00002517-200002000-00009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Mehbod AA, Ogilvie JW, Pinto MR, Schwender JD, Transfeldt EE, Wood KB, Le Huec JC, Dressel T (2005) Postoperative deep wound infections in adults after spinal fusion: management with vacuum assisted wound closure. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:14–17. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000133493.32503.d3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Sansur CA, Berven SH, Fu KM, Broadstone PA, Choma TJ, Goytan MJ, Noordeen HH, Knapp DR, Hart RA, Donaldson WF, Polly DW, Perra JH, Boachie-Adjei O (2011) Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality committee. Spine 36:556. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eadd41 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Abdul-Jabbar A, Takemoto S, Weber MH, Hu SS, Mummaneni PV, Deviren V, Ames CP, Chou D, Weinstein PR, Burch S, Berven SH (2012) Surgical site infection in spinal surgery: description of surgical and patient-based risk factors for postoperative infection using administrative claims data. Spine 37:1340–1345. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318246a53a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Muschik M, Luck W, Schlenzka D (2004) Implant removal for late-developing infection after instrumented posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis: reinstrumentation reduces loss of correction: a retrospective analysis of 45 cases. Eur Spine J 13:645–651. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0694-4 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar