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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European spine journal 2016-10, Vol.25 (10), p.3242-3248 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & dosage</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis</subject><subject>Cefazolin - administration & 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 & 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 & 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 & dosage</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis</topic><topic>Cefazolin - administration & 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 & 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 & 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 & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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 |