Literature DB >> 18600140

Therapy of spinal wound infections using vacuum-assisted wound closure: risk factors leading to resistance to treatment.

Avraam Ploumis1, Amir A Mehbod, Thomas D Dressel, Daryll C Dykes, Ensor E Transfeldt, John E Lonstein.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This study retrospectively reviewed spine surgical procedures complicated by wound infection and managed by a protocol including the use of vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC).
OBJECTIVE: To define factors influencing the number of debridements needed before the final wound closure by applying VAC for patients with postoperative spinal wound infections. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VAC has been suggested as a safe and probably effective method for the treatment of spinal wound infections. The risk factors for infection resistance and need for debridement revisions after VAC placement are unknown.
METHODS: Seventy-three consecutive patients with 79 wound infections after undergoing spine surgery were studied (6 of them had recurrence of infection). All patients were taken to the operating room for irrigation and debridement under general anesthesia followed by placement of the VAC with subsequent delayed closure of the wound. Linear regression and t test were used to identify if the following variables were risk factors for the resistance of infection to VAC treatment: timing of clinical appearance of infection, depth of infection (deep or superficial), presence of instrumentation, positive culture for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or more than 1 microorganism, age of the patient, and presence of other comorbidities.
RESULTS: There were 34 males and 39 females with an average age of 58.4 years (21 to 82). Once the VAC was initiated, there was an average of 1.4 procedures until and including closure of the wound. The wound was closed an average of 7 days (range 5 to 14) after the placement of the initial VAC on the wound. The average follow-up was 14 months (range 12 to 28). All of the patients but 2 achieved a clean, closed wound without removal of instrumentation at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Sixty patients had implants (instrumentation or allograft) within the site of wound infection. Thirteen patients had a decompression with exposed dura. Sixty-four infections (81%) presented with a draining wound within the first 6 weeks postoperatively. Sixty-nine infections (87.3%) were deep below the fascia. There was no statistical significance (P>0.05) of all tested risk factors for the resistance of infection to treatment with the VAC system. The parameter more related to repeat VAC procedures was the culture of MRSA or multiple bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS: VAC therapy may be an effective adjunct in closing spinal wounds even after the repeat procedures. The MRSA or multibacterial infections seem to be most likely to need repeat debridements and VAC treatment before final wound closure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18600140     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318141f99d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  14 in total

Review 1.  A clinical review of infected wound treatment with Vacuum Assisted Closure (V.A.C.) therapy: experience and case series.

Authors:  Allen Gabriel; Jaimie Shores; Brent Bernstein; Jean de Leon; Ravi Kamepalli; Tom Wolvos; Mona M Baharestani; Subhas Gupta
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Variables associated with remission in spinal surgical site infections.

Authors:  Julien Billières; Ilker Uçkay; Antonio Faundez; Jonathan Douissard; Paulina Kuczma; Domizio Suvà; Mathieu Zingg; Pierre Hoffmeyer; Dennis E Dominguez; Guillaume Racloz
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

3.  Risk factors for implant removal after spinal surgical site infection.

Authors:  Naoya Tsubouchi; Shunsuke Fujibayashi; Bungo Otsuki; Masanori Izeki; Hiroaki Kimura; Masato Ota; Takeshi Sakamoto; Akira Uchikoshi; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  On-ward surgical management of wound dehiscence: report of a single neurosurgical center experience and comparison of safety and effectiveness with conventional treatment.

Authors:  Alessandro Di Rienzo; Roberto Colasanti; Valentina Liverotti; Roberta Benigni; Riccardo Paracino; Gianluca Bizzocchi; Massimo Scerrati; Maurizio Iacoangeli
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 3.042

5.  Safety and efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy in treating deep surgical site infection after lumbar surgery.

Authors:  Jingming Wang; Yang Yang; Wenqiang Xing; Hao Xing; Yun Bai; Zhengqi Chang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 3.479

6.  Retention of polyurethane foam fragments during VAC therapy: a complication to be considered.

Authors:  Luca A Dessy; Francesco Serratore; Federico Corrias; Paola Parisi; Marco Mazzocchi; Bruno Carlesimo
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Vacuum-Assisted Closure: An Effective Technique to Manage Wound Complications After Metastatic Spine Tumour Surgery (MSTS)-A Case Report.

Authors:  Ravish Shammi Patel; Samuel Sherng Young Wang; Miguel Rafael David Ramos; Husam Walid Naji Najjar; Samuel Vara Prasad; Naresh Kumar
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

Review 8.  The use of vacuum-assisted closure in spinal wound infections with or without exposed dura.

Authors:  Robert Lee; Daniel Beder; John Street; Michael Boyd; Charles Fisher; Marcel Dvorak; Scott Paquette; Brian Kwon
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Retained Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Foams as a Cause of Infection Persistence.

Authors:  Konstantinos Anagnostakos; Andreas Thiery; Ismail Sahan
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Infection with spinal instrumentation: Review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management.

Authors:  Manish K Kasliwal; Lee A Tan; Vincent C Traynelis
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-10-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.