Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
- Author:
Jung Su LEE
1
;
Dong Ki AHN
;
Byung Kwon CHANG
;
Jae Il LEE
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Surgical site infection; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Treatment; Implant removal; Posterior one stage simultaneous revision
- MeSH: Case-Control Studies; Consensus; Diagnosis; Odds Ratio; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Wounds and Injuries
- From:Asian Spine Journal 2015;9(6):841-848
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational and case control study. PURPOSE: To identify appropriate treatment options according to the types of surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been no agreement or consensus with regard to this matter. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive SSIs were included and followed for more than one year. The elapsed time to diagnosis (ETD) according to the type of SSI was analyzed. The treatment options for each type and consequent clinical results were reviewed. The risk factors of removing the implants were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 6/32 (19%) superficial incisional, 6/32 (19%) deep incisional, and 20/32 (62%) organ/space infection cases (SII, DII, and O/SI, respectively) (p=0.002). ETD was 8.5+/-2.3 days in SII, 8.7+/-2.3 days in DII, and 164.5+/-131.1 days in O/SI (p=0.013). All cases of SII and DII retained implants and were treated by repeated irrigation and secondary closure. Among O/SIs, 10/20 were treated conservatively. Nine out of ten underwent posterior one stage simultaneous revision (POSSR) and in one case, the cage was removed anteriorly. Those who had ETDs longer than 3 months showed a significant risk of implant removal (p=0.008, odds ratio [OR]=40.3). The Oswestry disability index (ODI) improved from 47.3% to 33.8% in SII, from 55.0% to 32.3% in DII, and from 53.4% to 42.1% in O/SI (p=0.002). There was no difference among the three groups (p=0.106); however, there was a partial correlation between ETD and final ODI (r=0.382, p=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Latent O/SI was the most common type of SSI in PLIF. In cases of SII and DII, early aggressive wound management and secondary closure was effective and implant removal was not necessary. In some cases of O/SI, implant removal was unavoidable. However, implant removal could be averted by an earlier diagnosis. POSSR was feasible and safe. Functional outcomes were improved; however, disability increased as ETD increased.
