Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deep Wound Infections After Pediatric Scoliosis Surgery

  • Case Studies
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective clinical and radiographic review.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of deep wound infection, as well as the potential factors that correlate to surgical site infection (SSI) in spine deformity surgery.

Summary of Background Data

Preventing SSIs in pediatric spinal deformity surgery is a crucial task. Recent data have shown that antibiotic-loaded allograft and properly timed preoperative antibiotic administration decrease SSIs. However, there remain controversies over the appropriate preoperative antibiotic selection.

Methods

We reviewed 851 spinal deformity surgeries that took place at a single institution from 2006 to 2010. In particular, preoperative and postoperative characteristics of the deep wound infections were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-four patients had SSIs. The mean age at surgery in the infected cohort was 14 years, mean length of surgery was 8 hours, and median estimated blood loss was 2,482 mL (%EBV: 66%). Approximately 67% of the infected patients had bowel/bladder incontinence, and 71% had prolonged intravenous access perioperatively. According to culture results, the most effective antibiotic to treat the infections was vancomycin. Preoperative antibiotics were administered within 30 minutes of incision (hospital protocol) in only 12.5% (p =.001) and within 1 hour of incision in 54% of the cases. The wound status within 3 days of surgery is as follows: 38% intact, 29% significant wound drainage, and 33% wound dehiscence. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis were associated with intact wounds, whereas gram-negative pathogens were seen in dehisced or draining wounds (p <.001).

Conclusions

The authors showed that their cohort of patients with infection had a high rate of draining wounds, MRSA infections, administration of antibiotics more than 1 hour ahead of incision, and prolonged need for intravenous access after surgery. Efforts to mitigate these associations by using vancomycin prophylactically, doing meticulous wound closure to prevent drainage or dehiscence, and delivering antibiotics at an optimal time ahead of incision may lead to a decrease in infection rates in pediatric spinal surgery. Future prospective studies will be needed to validate this. © 2015 Scoliosis Research Society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Massie JB, Heller JG, Abitbol JJ, et al. Postoperative posterior spinal wound infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;284: 99e108.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dietz FR, Koontz FP, Found EM, Marsh JL. The importance of positive bacterial cultures of specimens obtained during clean orthopaedic operations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73: 1200e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sasso RC, Garrido BJ. Postoperative spinal wound infections. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008;16: 330e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Casanova JF, Herruzo R, Diez J. Risk factors for surgical site infection in children. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27: 709e15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bucher BT, Warner BW, Dillon PA. Antibiotic prophylaxis and the prevention of surgical site infection. Curr Opin Pediatr 2011;23: 334e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pull ter Gunne AF, Mohamed AS, Skolasky RL, et al. The presentation, incidence, etiology, and treatment of surgical site infections after spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35: 1323e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Krizek TJ, Robson MC. Evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg 1975;130: 579e84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Noble WC. The production of subcutaneous staphylococcal skin lesions in mice. Br J Exp Pathol 1965;46: 254e62.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man; a study of the problems of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol 1957;38: 573e86.

    Google Scholar 

  10. James RC, Macleod CJ. Induction of staphylococcal infections in mice with small inocula introduced on sutures. Br J Exp Pathol 1961;42: 266e77.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20: 250e78. quiz 279e80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moe JH. Complications of scoliosis treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1967;53: 21e30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klein JD, Garfin SR. Nutritional status in the patient with spinal infection. Orthop Clin North Am 1996;27: 33e6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V. Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. A selected survey of ABS members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18: 2231e8; discussion 2238e9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hodges SD, Humphreys SC, Eck JC, et al. Low postoperative infection rates with instrumented lumbar fusion. South Med J 1998;91: 1132e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arens S, Schlegel U, Printzen G, et al. Influence of materials for fixation implants on local infection. An experimental study of steel versus titanium DCP in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78: 647e51.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fry DE, Fry RV, Borzotta AP. Nosocomial blood-borne infection secondary to intravascular devices. Am J Surg 1994;167: 268e72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) report, data summary from October 1986-April 1996. A report from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system. Am J Infect Control 1996;24: 380e8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nooyen SM, Overbeek BP, Brutel de la Riviere A, et al. Prospective randomised comparison of single-dose versus multiple-dose cefuroxime for prophylaxis in coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994;13:1033–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weigelt JA, Lipsky BA, Tabak YP, et al. Surgical site infections: causative pathogens and associated outcomes. Am J Infect Control 2010;38: 112e20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jernigan JA. Is the burden of Staphylococcus aureus among patients with surgical-site infections growing? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25: 457e60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim DH, Spencer M, Davidson SM, et al. Institutional prescreening for detection and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92: 1820e6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Page CP, Bohnen JM, Fletcher JR, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds. Guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993;128: 79e88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bratzler DW, Hunt DR. The surgical infection prevention and surgical care improvement projects: national initiatives to improve outcomes for patients having surgery. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43: 322e30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dellinger EP, Gross PA, Barrett TL, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 1994;18: 422e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56: 1839e88.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, et al. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326: 281e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Milstone AM, Maragakis LL, Townsend T, et al. Timing of preoper-ative antibiotic prophylaxis: a modifiable risk factor for deep surgical site infections after pediatric spinal fusion. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2008;27: 704e8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Steinberg JP, Braun BI, Hellinger WC, et al. Timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infections: results from the Trial to Reduce Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Errors. Ann Surg 2009;250: 10e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, P.O. Box 269, Wilmington, DE, 19899, USA

    Sina Pourtaheri MD, Freeman Miller MD, Kirk Dabney MD, Suken A. Shah MD, Susan Dubowy PAC & Laurens Holmes MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Sina Pourtaheri MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Freeman Miller MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kirk Dabney MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suken A. Shah MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan Dubowy PAC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laurens Holmes MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Freeman Miller MD.

Additional information

Author disclosures: None declared for authors SP (none); FM (none); SD (none); LH (none); KD (personal fees from DePuy Spine); SAS (patent filed for DePuy Synthes Spine, Inc.).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pourtaheri, S., Miller, F., Dabney, K. et al. Deep Wound Infections After Pediatric Scoliosis Surgery. Spine Deform 3, 533–540 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.04.003

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.04.003

Keywords

Search

Navigation