Role of local streptomycin in prevention of surgical site infection in TB spine

  • Kaustubh Ahuja
  • Gagandeep Yadav
  • P. V. Sudhakar
  • Pankaj KandwalEmail author
Original Article



Surgical site infection (SSI) continues to be one of the most common post-operative complications in most spine surgeries. Patients with tuberculosis (TB) of spine are more at risk of developing this complication due to a number of reasons. This adds to significant morbidity and economic burden on patients adversely affecting the mental status and quality of life of patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of local streptomycin in preventing SSI in patients undergoing surgical management of spinal TB.


In total, 56 patients who underwent surgical management for radiologically proven TB spine divided into two groups were included in the study. Group A included 30 patients with no local streptomycin administered intraoperatively, while group B included 26 patients operated in the later part of study with the use of local streptomycin intraoperatively. The two groups were compared and the outcome criteria analysed were SSI rate, length of hospital stay, duration of post-operative antibiotics and need for debridement.


Length of hospital stay (group A: 18.4 ± 6.9 days; group B: 9.7 ± 3.9 days) and duration of post-operative antibiotics (group A: 8.1 ± 1.6 days; group B: 6.2 ± 2.1 days) were significantly higher in group A when compared with group B. SSI rate (group A: 13.34%; group B: 3.84%) and need for debridement (group A: 10%; group B: 3.84%) were higher in group A, but the difference was not statistically significant.


Intraoperative administration of local streptomycin significantly reduces the length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic administration in post-operative period in patients undergoing surgery for TB spine.


Intrawound antibiotics Streptomycin Tuberculosis spine 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Turnbull F (1953) Postoperative inflammatory disease of lumbar discs. J Neurosurg 10:469–473. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 204:247–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alam MS, Phan K, Karim R et al (2015) Surgery for spinal tuberculosis: a multi-center experience of 582 cases. J Spine Surg 1:65–71. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey HL, Gabriel M, Hodgson AR, Shin JS (1972) Tuberculosis of the spine in children: operative findings and results in one hundred consecutive patients treated by removal of the lesion and anterior grafting. JBJS 54:1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fukuta S, Miyamoto K, Masuda T et al (2003) Two-stage (posterior and anterior) surgical treatment using posterior spinal instrumentation for pyogenic and tuberculotic spondylitis. Spine 28:E302. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin D, Qu D, Chen J, Zhang H (2004) One-stage anterior interbody autografting and instrumentation in primary surgical management of thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis. Eur Spine J 13:114–121. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ma YZ, Cui X, Li HW et al (2012) Outcomes of anterior and posterior instrumentation under different surgical procedures for treating thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis in adults. Int Orthop 36:299–305. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JS, Moon KP, Kim SJ, Suh KT (2007) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation in the surgical management of lumbar tuberculous spondylitis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(2):210–214. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tuli SM (1975) Results of treatment of spinal tuberculosis by “middle-path” regime. J Bone Joint Surg Br 57:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lemans JVC, Wijdicks SPJ, Boot W et al (2018) Intrawound treatment for prevention of surgical site infections in instrumented spinal surgery: a systematic comparative effectiveness review and meta-analysis. Glob Spine J. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heller A, McIff TE, Lai S-M, Burton DC (2015) Intrawound vancomycin powder decreases staphylococcal surgical site infections following posterior instrumented spinal arthrodesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E584–E589. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim HS, Lee SG, Kim WK et al (2013) Prophylactic intrawound application of vancomycin powder in instrumented spinal fusion surgery. Korean J Spine 10:121–125. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tubaki VR, Rajasekaran S, Shetty AP (2013) Effects of using intravenous antibiotic only versus local intrawound vancomycin antibiotic powder application in addition to intravenous antibiotics on postoperative infection in spine surgery in 907 patients. Spine 38:2149–2155. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bogen E (1948) Streptomycin treatment for tuberculosis. J Natl Med Assoc 40:32PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rajasekaran S, Khandelwal G (2013) Drug therapy in spinal tuberculosis. Eur Spine J 22:587–593. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dhall A, Gupta SB, Kumar N, Narang P, Panicker H, Puri SK (2001) Percutaneous drainage of tuberculous abcesses. Indian J Radiol Imaging 11:13–16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahern RT (1950) Tuberculous sinuses treated with streptomycin locally. Lancet 255:443–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bosworth DM, Wright HA (1952) Streptomycin in bone and joint tuberculosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 34-A:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mukopadhaya B, Mishra NK (1957) Treatment of tuberculous sinuses and abscesses of osteoarticular origin. J Bone Joint Surg Br 39-B:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAll India Institute of Medical SciencesRishikeshIndia

Personalised recommendations