Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 111–119

Surgical site infection after pediatric spinal deformity surgery

Pediatrics (M Glotzbecker, Section Editor)

Abstract

The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after spinal deformity surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis ranges from 0.5–6.7%. The risk of infection following spinal fusion in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis is greater, with reported rates of 6.1–15.2% for cerebral palsy and 8–41.7% for myelodysplasia. SSIs result in increased patient morbidity, multiple operations, prolonged hospital stays, and significant financial costs. Recent literature has focused on elucidating the most common organisms involved in SSIs, as well as identifying modifiable risk factors and prevention strategies that may decrease the rates of infection. These include malnutrition, positive urine cultures, antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical site antisepsis, antibiotic-loaded allograft, local application of antibiotics, and irrigation solutions. Acute and delayed SSIs are managed differently. Removal of instrumentation is required for effective treatment of delayed SSIs. This review article examines the current literature on the prevention and management of SSIs after pediatric spinal deformity surgery.

Keywords

Spinal fusion Spinal surgery Scoliosis Spinal deformity Infection Complications Surgical site infection Spinal infection Pediatric Risk factors Prevention Instrumentation Infected spinal instrumentation Implant removal 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al.: CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992, 13:606–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark CE, Shufflebarger HL. Late-developing infection in instrumented idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 1999;24:1909–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Hedequist D, Haugen A, Hresko T, et al.: Failure of attempted implant retention in spinal deformity delayed surgical site infections. Spine 2009, 34:60–64. This retrospective review demonstrated that implant removal is required for effective treatment of delayed surgical site infection after pediatric spinal deformity surgery. The number of hospitalizations, number of hospital days, number of operations, and cost of hospitalization correlated with the number of debridements performed before implant removal. Patients should be counseled that curve progression can occur and may require revision surgery after clearance of the infection.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richards BS, Emara KM. Delayed infections after posterior TSRH spinal instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: revisited. Spine. 2001;26:1990–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richards BS. Delayed infections following posterior spinal instrumentation for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:524–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ho C, Skaggs DL, Weiss JM, et al. Management of infection after instrumented posterior spine fusion in pediatric scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32:2739–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Labbe AC, Demers AM, Rodrigues R, et al. Surgical-site infection following spinal fusion: a case–control study in a children’s hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:591–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Master DL, Poe-Kochert C, Jochen SH, et al. Wound infections after surgery for neuromuscular scoliosis: risk factors and treatment outcomes. Spine. 2011;36:E179–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szoke G, Lipton G, Miller F, et al. Wound infection after spinal fusion in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 1998;18:727–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Cahill PJ, Warnick DE, Lee MJ, et al.: Infection after spinal fusion for pediatric spinal deformity: thirty years of experience at a single institution. Spine 2010, 35:1211–1217. This retrospective review showed that rates of infection after pediatric spinal deformity surgery vary based on underlying diagnosis. Pseudomonas was the most common organism responsible for infections after Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Nearly half of patients who underwent implant removal developed a progressive deformity, with those having instrumentation removed less than 1 year postoperatively being at greatest risk.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aleissa S, Parsons D, Grant J, et al. Deep wound infection following pediatric scoliosis surgery: incidence and analysis of risk factors. Can J Surg. 2011;54:263–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carreon LY, Puno RM, Lenke LG, et al. Non-neurologic complications following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2427–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Di Silvestre M, Bakaloudis G, Lolli F, et al. Late-developing infection following posterior fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20 Suppl 1:S121–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ho C, Sucato DJ, Richards BS. Risk factors for the development of delayed infections following posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Spine. 2007;32:2272–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rihn JA, Lee JY, Ward WT. Infection after the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: evaluation of the diagnosis, treatment, and impact on clinical outcomes. Spine. 2008;33:289–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Sansur CA, et al. Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality committee. Spine. 2011;36:556–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coe JD, Arlet V, Donaldson W, et al. Complications in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the new millennium. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine. 2006;31:345–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Vitale MG, Mackenzie WGS, Matsumoto H, et al.: Surgical site infection following spinal instrumentation for scoliosis: lessons learned from a multi-center analysis of 1352 spinal instrumentation procedures for scoliosis [abstract 32]. Presented at the Scoliosis Research Society 46th Annual Meeting and Course. Louisville, Kentucky; September 14–17, 2011. This multi-center study showed that nearly half of surgical site infections after scoliosis surgery contained at least one gram-negative organism. Significantly higher rates of gram-negative infections were found in patients with non-idiopathic scoliosis. Pseudomonas was the third most common organism after Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coe JD, Smith JS, Berven S, et al. Complications of spinal fusion for Scheuermann kyphosis: a report of the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality committee. Spine. 2010;35:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Rhee MA, de Klerk LW, Verhaar JA. Vacuum-assisted wound closure of deep infections after instrumented spinal fusion in six children with neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine J. 2007;7:596–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sponseller PD, LaPorte DM, Hungerford MW, et al. Deep wound infections after neuromuscular scoliosis surgery: a multicenter study of risk factors and treatment outcomes. Spine. 2000;25:2461–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Banit DM, Iwinski Jr HJ, Talwalkar V, et al. Posterior spinal fusion in paralytic scoliosis and myelomeningocele. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21:117–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Benson ER, Thomson JD, Smith BG, et al. Results and morbidity in a consecutive series of patients undergoing spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine. 1998;23:2308–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geiger F, Parsch D, Carstens C. Complications of scoliosis surgery in children with myelomeningocele. Eur Spine J. 1999;8:22–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McMaster MJ. Anterior and posterior instrumentation and fusion of thoracolumbar scoliosis due to myelomeningocele. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:20–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osebold WR, Mayfield JK, Winter RB, et al.: Surgical treatment of paralytic scoliosis associated with myelomeningocele. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982, 64:841–856.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stella G, Ascani E, Cervellati S, et al. Surgical treatment of scoliosis associated with myelomeningocele. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1998;8 Suppl 1:22–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Hatlen T, Song K, Shurtleff D, et al.: Contributory factors to postoperative spinal fusion complications for children with myelomeningocele. Spine 2010, 35:1294–1299. These authors identified poor preoperative nutrition and positive preoperative urine cultures as significant independent risk factors for infection after spinal fusion in myelodysplasia patients. They recommend performing a preoperative nutritional survey and correcting any deficiencies, as well as obtaining a preoperative urine culture and treating positive cultures. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohamed Ali MH, Koutharawu DN, Miller F, et al. Operative and clinical markers of deep wound infection after spine fusion in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010;30:851–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Sponseller PD, Shah SA, Abel MF, et al.: Infection rate after spine surgery in cerebral palsy is high and impairs results: multicenter analysis of risk factors and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:711–716. This multicenter retrospective review found that the frequency of gram-negative infections equaled that of gram-positive infections after spine surgery in cerebral palsy patients. Pseudomonas was the most common gram-negative organism. The authors also identified use of a unit rod versus a custom bent rod as a significant risk factor for infection.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Teli MG, Cinnella P, Vincitorio F, et al. Spinal fusion with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for neuropathic scoliosis in patients with cerebral palsy. Spine. 2006;31:E441–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tsirikos AI, Lipton G, Chang WN, et al. Surgical correction of scoliosis in pediatric patients with cerebral palsy using the unit rod instrumentation. Spine. 2008;33:1133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dias RC, Miller F, Dabney K, et al. Surgical correction of spinal deformity using a unit rod in children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop. 1996;16:734–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Borkhuu B, Borowski A, Shah SA, et al. Antibiotic-loaded allograft decreases the rate of acute deep wound infection after spinal fusion in cerebral palsy. Spine. 2008;33:2300–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Linam WM, Margolis PA, Staat MA, et al. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection after pediatric posterior spinal fusion procedure. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30:109–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jevsevar DS, Karlin LI. The relationship between preoperative nutritional status and complications after an operation for scoliosis in patients who have cerebral palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:880–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verhoef M, Lurvink M, Barf HA, et al. High prevalence of incontinence among young adults with spina bifida: description, prediction and problem perception. Spinal Cord. 2005;43:331–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sponseller PD, Shah SA, Abel MF, et al. Scoliosis surgery in cerebral palsy: differences between unit rod and custom rods. Spine. 2009;34:840–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Soultanis KC, Pyrovolou N, Zahos KA, et al. Late postoperative infection following spinal instrumentation: stainless steel versus titanium implants. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2008;17:193–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Diab M, Smucny M, Dormans JP, et al. Use and outcomes of wound drain in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2011. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823bbf0b.
  41. 41.
    Canavese F, Gupta S, Krajbich JI, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure for deep infection after spinal instrumentation for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:377–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brook I, Frazier EH. Aerobic and anaerobic microbiology of wound infection following spinal fusion in children. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2000;32:20–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dietz FR, Koontz FP, Found EM, et al. The importance of positive bacterial cultures of specimens obtained during clean orthopaedic operations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:1200–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    • Nandyala SV, Schwend RM: Prevalence of intra-operative tissue cultures in posterior pediatric spinal deformity surgery [e-poster 10]. Presented at the 5th International Congress on Early Onset Scoliosis and Growing Spine. Orlando, FL; November 18–19, 2011. This retrospective review demonstrated a 23% rate of positive tissue cultures from pediatric patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion. Significant risk factors were neuromuscular scoliosis with fusion to the pelvis, duration of surgery greater than 6 hours, and patients over 11 years of age. Propionibacterium acnes was the most common organism and its presence was significantly associated with back acne.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ramage G, Tunney MM, Patrick S, et al. Formation of Propionibacterium acnes biofilms on orthopaedic biomaterials and their susceptibility to antimicrobials. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3221–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oprica C, Nord CE. European surveillance study on the antibiotic susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11:204–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Milstone AM, Maragakis LL, Townsend T, et al. Timing of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis: a modifiable risk factor for deep surgical site infections after pediatric spinal fusion. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27:704–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    • Takemoto RC, Park J, Ricart-Hoffiz PA, et al.: Prospective, randomized study of surgical site infections with the use of perioperative antibiotics for 24 hours vs. the duration of a drain after spinal surgery [abstract 31]. Presented at the Scoliosis Research Society 46th Annual Meeting and Course. Louisville, Kentucky; September 14–17, 2011. This prospective, randomized study showed that continuing postoperative antibiotics for the duration that a drain was in place did not decrease the rate of acute surgical site infection after thoracolumbar spine surgery compared to continuing antibiotics for 24 hours.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    • Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr., Itani KM, et al.: Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis. N Engl J Med 2010, 362:18–26. This multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial found that rates of superficial and deep surgical site infection after clean-contaminated gastrointestinal, thoracic, gynecologic, and urologic procedures were significantly lower with preoperative skin cleansing with clorhexidine-alcohol compared with povidone-iodine.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    • Sweet F, Sliva C, Roh M: Intrawound application of vancomycin for prophylaxis in instrumented thoracolumbar fusions. Spine 2011, 36:2084–2088. This retrospective review of adults who had undergone instrumented thoracolumbar fusion demonstrated that standard antibiotic prophylaxis combined with application of vancomycin powder directly to the wound resulted in a significantly lower rate of infection, versus standard antibiotic prophylaxis alone. There were no adverse events from use of the vancomycin powder.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Neill KR, Smith JG, Abtahi AM, et al. Reduced surgical site infections in patients undergoing posterior spinal stabilization of traumatic injuries using vancomycin powder. Spine J. 2011;11:641–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Molinari WJ, Khera O, Molinari RW: Prophylactic operative site powdered vancomycin and postoperative deep spinal wound infection: 1,512 consecutive surgical cases during a six-year period [abstract 37]. Presented at the Scoliosis Research Society 46th Annual Meeting and Course. Louisville, Kentucky; September 14–17, 2011.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rahman, RK, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al.: Intrawound vancomycin powder lowers the acute deep wound infection rate in adult spinal deformity patients [abstract 36]. Presented at the Scoliosis Research Society 46th Annual Meeting and Course. Louisville, Kentucky; September 14–17, 2011.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chundamala J, Wright JG. The efficacy and risks of using povidone-iodine irrigation to prevent surgical site infection: an evidence-based review. Can J Surg. 2007;50:473–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chang FY, Chang MC, Wang ST, et al. Can povidone-iodine solution be used safely in a spinal surgery? Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1005–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cheng MT, Chang MC, Wang ST, et al. Efficacy of dilute betadine solution irrigation in the prevention of postoperative infection of spinal surgery. Spine. 2005;30:1689–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    • Hardacker J, Hardacker T: Dilute betadine wound lavage for surgical wound prophylaxis [abstract 103]. Presented at the North American Spine Society 24th Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA; November 10–14, 2009. These authors reported a significanty lower rate of infection after posterior spinal fusion in adults who underwent irrigation with 3.5% betadine solution in addition to sterile saline irrigation, compared with sterile saline irrigation alone. No complications resulted from use of the dilute betadine solution. Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    McLure AR, Gordon J. In-vitro evaluation of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Hosp Infect. 1992;21:291–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schmidlin PR, Imfeld T, Sahrmann P, et al. Effect of short-time povidone-iodine application on osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Open Dent J. 2009;3:208–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bhandari M, Adili A, Schemitsch EH. The efficacy of low-pressure lavage with different irrigating solutions to remove adherent bacteria from bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:412–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kaysinger KK, Nicholson NC, Ramp WK, et al. Toxic effects of wound irrigation solutions on cultured tibiae and osteoblasts. J Orthop Trauma. 1995;9:303–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bhandari M, Adili A, Lachowski RJ. High pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated human tibiae: an in vitro study. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:479–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, et al. High and low pressure pulsatile lavage of contaminated tibial fractures: an in vitro study of bacterial adherence and bone damage. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13:526–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dirschl DR, Duff GP, Dahners LE, et al. High pressure pulsatile lavage irrigation of intraarticular fractures: effects on fracture healing. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:460–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lee EW, Dirschl DR, Duff G, et al. High-pressure pulsatile lavage irrigation of fresh intraarticular fractures: effectiveness at removing particulate matter from bone. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:162–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Draeger RW, Dahners LE. Traumatic wound debridement: a comparison of irrigation methods. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:83–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hassinger SM, Harding G, Wongworawat MD. High-pressure pulsatile lavage propagates bacteria into soft tissue. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:27–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rohmiller MT, Akbarnia BA, Raiszadeh K, et al. Closed suction irrigation for the treatment of postoperative wound infections following posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation. Spine. 2010;35:642–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gristina AG, Price JL, Hobgood CD, et al. Bacterial colonization of percutaneous sutures. Surgery. 1985;98:12–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying Li
    • 1
  • Michael Glotzbecker
    • 2
  • Daniel Hedequist
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryC.S. Mott Children’s HospitalAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryChildren’s Hospital BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations