Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion: 2 doses versus antibiotics till drain removal

Purpose There is much variation in the choice, timing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infections (SSI) but no guideline exists for scoliosis surgery. The aim of study was to compare the efficacy of two antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) protocols with cephazolin i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European spine journal 2016-10, Vol.25 (10), p.3242-3248
Hauptverfasser: Kamath, Vijay H. D., Cheung, Jason Pui Yin, Mak, Kin Cheung, Wong, Yat Wa, Cheung, Wai Yuen, Luk, Keith Dip Kei, Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3248
container_issue 10
container_start_page 3242
container_title European spine journal
container_volume 25
creator Kamath, Vijay H. D.
Cheung, Jason Pui Yin
Mak, Kin Cheung
Wong, Yat Wa
Cheung, Wai Yuen
Luk, Keith Dip Kei
Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee
description Purpose There is much variation in the choice, timing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infections (SSI) but no guideline exists for scoliosis surgery. The aim of study was to compare the efficacy of two antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) protocols with cephazolin in preventing SSI in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A retrospective comparative analysis of two post-operative AMP protocols (two postoperative doses versus continued antibiotics till drain removal) was performed. Patient characteristics, pre-operative, intra- and post-operative risk factors for infection, drain use, generic drug name and number of doses administered were recorded from 226 patients with AIS who had undergone posterior spinal fusion. Details of superficial or deep SSI and wound healing aberrations, and serious adverse events were recorded. Analysis was performed to evaluate differences in the pre-, intra- and post-operative variables between the two groups. Results 155 patients received 2 postoperative doses of AMP and 71 patients had antibiotics till drain removal. The average follow-up was 43 months. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7 % for the spine wound and 1.3 % for the iliac crest wound. 1.9 % of patients with 2 doses of AMP and 1.4 % of patients with antibiotics till drain removal had SSI. No adverse reactions attributable to cephazolin were observed. Conclusions This is the first study on the AMP protocol in scoliosis surgery for SSI prevention. Results suggest that two doses of AMP are as effective as continued antimicrobial use until drain removal. Cephazolin appears to be effective and safe for prophylaxis.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00586-016-4491-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1837296872</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1837296872</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-c48cfad6d73161f92d0dcaf24a551a3f42339e28e1e9ff2252c214ceda27a2ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks1u1DAQxyMEotvCA3BBlrhwCdhO4sTcqgoKUiUucI689ng7VRIHT7Kir8bTMasUhJCQuPhrfvOf8cwUxQsl3ygp27ckZdOZUipT1rVVZfuo2Km60qW0lX5c7KStZWlaZc-Kc6I7KVVjpXlanGljW6VNtSt-XE4Ljuhz2qMbxJzTfHs_uO9IYkl8hSNMi6A1H9CznXABgVMEv2Ca-CRcSAOQP1EYMM1uuUUvyKcBE7EKPyAbSaxTgHxIOB3EnGiBjCkLmnFi2bgSy70TWoREQOIImVYSjnPbY1rQczY4DCJkxyEzjOnohmfFk-gGgucP-0Xx9cP7L1cfy5vP15-uLm9KX9fdwmvnowsmtJUyKlodZPAu6to1jXJVrHVVWdAdKLAxat1or1XtITjdOg1QXRSvN10uzrcVaOlH5A8Pg5sgrdSrrmq1NV2r_wPVxphKWsXoq7_Qu7RmLsZGdZ1UtmNKbRQ3iChD7OeMo8v3vZL9aQb6bQZ6noH-NAN9yz4vH5TX_Qjht8evpjOgN4DYNB0g_xH6n6o_AfvtwiM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826880198</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion: 2 doses versus antibiotics till drain removal</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Kamath, Vijay H. D. ; Cheung, Jason Pui Yin ; Mak, Kin Cheung ; Wong, Yat Wa ; Cheung, Wai Yuen ; Luk, Keith Dip Kei ; Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</creator><creatorcontrib>Kamath, Vijay H. D. ; Cheung, Jason Pui Yin ; Mak, Kin Cheung ; Wong, Yat Wa ; Cheung, Wai Yuen ; Luk, Keith Dip Kei ; Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose There is much variation in the choice, timing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infections (SSI) but no guideline exists for scoliosis surgery. The aim of study was to compare the efficacy of two antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) protocols with cephazolin in preventing SSI in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A retrospective comparative analysis of two post-operative AMP protocols (two postoperative doses versus continued antibiotics till drain removal) was performed. Patient characteristics, pre-operative, intra- and post-operative risk factors for infection, drain use, generic drug name and number of doses administered were recorded from 226 patients with AIS who had undergone posterior spinal fusion. Details of superficial or deep SSI and wound healing aberrations, and serious adverse events were recorded. Analysis was performed to evaluate differences in the pre-, intra- and post-operative variables between the two groups. Results 155 patients received 2 postoperative doses of AMP and 71 patients had antibiotics till drain removal. The average follow-up was 43 months. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7 % for the spine wound and 1.3 % for the iliac crest wound. 1.9 % of patients with 2 doses of AMP and 1.4 % of patients with antibiotics till drain removal had SSI. No adverse reactions attributable to cephazolin were observed. Conclusions This is the first study on the AMP protocol in scoliosis surgery for SSI prevention. Results suggest that two doses of AMP are as effective as continued antimicrobial use until drain removal. Cephazolin appears to be effective and safe for prophylaxis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0940-6719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4491-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26971263</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis ; Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage ; Child ; Device Removal ; Drainage ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neurosurgery ; Original Article ; Retrospective Studies ; Scoliosis - surgery ; Spinal Fusion ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Surgical Wound Infection - prevention &amp; control ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>European spine journal, 2016-10, Vol.25 (10), p.3242-3248</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-c48cfad6d73161f92d0dcaf24a551a3f42339e28e1e9ff2252c214ceda27a2ee3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-c48cfad6d73161f92d0dcaf24a551a3f42339e28e1e9ff2252c214ceda27a2ee3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00586-016-4491-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00586-016-4491-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26971263$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kamath, Vijay H. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Jason Pui Yin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mak, Kin Cheung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Yat Wa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Wai Yuen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luk, Keith Dip Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</creatorcontrib><title>Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion: 2 doses versus antibiotics till drain removal</title><title>European spine journal</title><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><description>Purpose There is much variation in the choice, timing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infections (SSI) but no guideline exists for scoliosis surgery. The aim of study was to compare the efficacy of two antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) protocols with cephazolin in preventing SSI in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A retrospective comparative analysis of two post-operative AMP protocols (two postoperative doses versus continued antibiotics till drain removal) was performed. Patient characteristics, pre-operative, intra- and post-operative risk factors for infection, drain use, generic drug name and number of doses administered were recorded from 226 patients with AIS who had undergone posterior spinal fusion. Details of superficial or deep SSI and wound healing aberrations, and serious adverse events were recorded. Analysis was performed to evaluate differences in the pre-, intra- and post-operative variables between the two groups. Results 155 patients received 2 postoperative doses of AMP and 71 patients had antibiotics till drain removal. The average follow-up was 43 months. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7 % for the spine wound and 1.3 % for the iliac crest wound. 1.9 % of patients with 2 doses of AMP and 1.4 % of patients with antibiotics till drain removal had SSI. No adverse reactions attributable to cephazolin were observed. Conclusions This is the first study on the AMP protocol in scoliosis surgery for SSI prevention. Results suggest that two doses of AMP are as effective as continued antimicrobial use until drain removal. Cephazolin appears to be effective and safe for prophylaxis.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis</subject><subject>Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Device Removal</subject><subject>Drainage</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Scoliosis - surgery</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0940-6719</issn><issn>1432-0932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks1u1DAQxyMEotvCA3BBlrhwCdhO4sTcqgoKUiUucI689ng7VRIHT7Kir8bTMasUhJCQuPhrfvOf8cwUxQsl3ygp27ckZdOZUipT1rVVZfuo2Km60qW0lX5c7KStZWlaZc-Kc6I7KVVjpXlanGljW6VNtSt-XE4Ljuhz2qMbxJzTfHs_uO9IYkl8hSNMi6A1H9CznXABgVMEv2Ca-CRcSAOQP1EYMM1uuUUvyKcBE7EKPyAbSaxTgHxIOB3EnGiBjCkLmnFi2bgSy70TWoREQOIImVYSjnPbY1rQczY4DCJkxyEzjOnohmfFk-gGgucP-0Xx9cP7L1cfy5vP15-uLm9KX9fdwmvnowsmtJUyKlodZPAu6to1jXJVrHVVWdAdKLAxat1or1XtITjdOg1QXRSvN10uzrcVaOlH5A8Pg5sgrdSrrmq1NV2r_wPVxphKWsXoq7_Qu7RmLsZGdZ1UtmNKbRQ3iChD7OeMo8v3vZL9aQb6bQZ6noH-NAN9yz4vH5TX_Qjht8evpjOgN4DYNB0g_xH6n6o_AfvtwiM</recordid><startdate>20161001</startdate><enddate>20161001</enddate><creator>Kamath, Vijay H. D.</creator><creator>Cheung, Jason Pui Yin</creator><creator>Mak, Kin Cheung</creator><creator>Wong, Yat Wa</creator><creator>Cheung, Wai Yuen</creator><creator>Luk, Keith Dip Kei</creator><creator>Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161001</creationdate><title>Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion: 2 doses versus antibiotics till drain removal</title><author>Kamath, Vijay H. D. ; Cheung, Jason Pui Yin ; Mak, Kin Cheung ; Wong, Yat Wa ; Cheung, Wai Yuen ; Luk, Keith Dip Kei ; Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-c48cfad6d73161f92d0dcaf24a551a3f42339e28e1e9ff2252c214ceda27a2ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis</topic><topic>Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Device Removal</topic><topic>Drainage</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Scoliosis - surgery</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kamath, Vijay H. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Jason Pui Yin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mak, Kin Cheung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Yat Wa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Wai Yuen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luk, Keith Dip Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kamath, Vijay H. D.</au><au>Cheung, Jason Pui Yin</au><au>Mak, Kin Cheung</au><au>Wong, Yat Wa</au><au>Cheung, Wai Yuen</au><au>Luk, Keith Dip Kei</au><au>Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion: 2 doses versus antibiotics till drain removal</atitle><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle><stitle>Eur Spine J</stitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><date>2016-10-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>3242</spage><epage>3248</epage><pages>3242-3248</pages><issn>0940-6719</issn><eissn>1432-0932</eissn><abstract>Purpose There is much variation in the choice, timing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infections (SSI) but no guideline exists for scoliosis surgery. The aim of study was to compare the efficacy of two antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) protocols with cephazolin in preventing SSI in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A retrospective comparative analysis of two post-operative AMP protocols (two postoperative doses versus continued antibiotics till drain removal) was performed. Patient characteristics, pre-operative, intra- and post-operative risk factors for infection, drain use, generic drug name and number of doses administered were recorded from 226 patients with AIS who had undergone posterior spinal fusion. Details of superficial or deep SSI and wound healing aberrations, and serious adverse events were recorded. Analysis was performed to evaluate differences in the pre-, intra- and post-operative variables between the two groups. Results 155 patients received 2 postoperative doses of AMP and 71 patients had antibiotics till drain removal. The average follow-up was 43 months. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7 % for the spine wound and 1.3 % for the iliac crest wound. 1.9 % of patients with 2 doses of AMP and 1.4 % of patients with antibiotics till drain removal had SSI. No adverse reactions attributable to cephazolin were observed. Conclusions This is the first study on the AMP protocol in scoliosis surgery for SSI prevention. Results suggest that two doses of AMP are as effective as continued antimicrobial use until drain removal. Cephazolin appears to be effective and safe for prophylaxis.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>26971263</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00586-016-4491-7</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0940-6719
ispartof European spine journal, 2016-10, Vol.25 (10), p.3242-3248
issn 0940-6719
1432-0932
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1837296872
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
Cefazolin - administration & dosage
Child
Device Removal
Drainage
Female
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neurosurgery
Original Article
Retrospective Studies
Scoliosis - surgery
Spinal Fusion
Surgical Orthopedics
Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control
Young Adult
title Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infection in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion: 2 doses versus antibiotics till drain removal
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T17%3A20%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Antimicrobial%20prophylaxis%20to%20prevent%20surgical%20site%20infection%20in%20adolescent%20idiopathic%20scoliosis%20patients%20undergoing%20posterior%20spinal%20fusion:%202%20doses%20versus%20antibiotics%20till%20drain%20removal&rft.jtitle=European%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Kamath,%20Vijay%20H.%20D.&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3242&rft.epage=3248&rft.pages=3242-3248&rft.issn=0940-6719&rft.eissn=1432-0932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00586-016-4491-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1837296872%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826880198&rft_id=info:pmid/26971263&rfr_iscdi=true