BACKGROUND/AIMS: Infection of implanted hardware after deep brain stimulation (DBS) has a significant impact on patient morbidity. We examined all patients who underwent DBS procedures over the last 9 years in our centre to assess the infection rate and possible factors related to surgery that may predispose to infection. METHODS: Surgical reports and clinical notes were reviewed in 273 consecutive patients who underwent a total of 519 DBS-related procedures in our institute between November 2002 and September 2011. RESULTS: Sixteen separate hardware-related infections occurred in 11 patients. Infections occurred in 3% of all procedures and 4% of all patients. The infection rate after implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacement surgery was more than three times higher than after de novo DBS surgery. In addition, male patients were more likely to develop device-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear why infection rates should be more than three times higher after IPG replacement surgery than after the de novo procedure. The former is a shorter and simpler procedure to conduct. Perhaps the use of better antimicrobial protection and rechargeable batteries may be useful strategies to reduce infections following IPG revision surgery.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Infection of implanted hardware after deep brain stimulation (DBS) has a significant impact on patient morbidity. We examined all patients who underwent DBS procedures over the last 9 years in our centre to assess the infection rate and possible factors related to surgery that may predispose to infection. METHODS: Surgical reports and clinical notes were reviewed in 273 consecutive patients who underwent a total of 519 DBS-related procedures in our institute between November 2002 and September 2011. RESULTS: Sixteen separate hardware-related infections occurred in 11 patients. Infections occurred in 3% of all procedures and 4% of all patients. The infection rate after implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacement surgery was more than three times higher than after de novo DBS surgery. In addition, male patients were more likely to develop device-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear why infection rates should be more than three times higher after IPG replacement surgery than after the de novo procedure. The former is a shorter and simpler procedure to conduct. Perhaps the use of better antimicrobial protection and rechargeable batteries may be useful strategies to reduce infections following IPG revision surgery.
Authors: Kingsley O Abode-Iyamah; Hsiu-Yin Chiang; Royce W Woodroffe; Brian Park; Francis J Jareczek; Yasunori Nagahama; Nolan Winslow; Loreen A Herwaldt; Jeremy D W Greenlee Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Kyle T Mitchell; Monica Volz; Aaron Lee; Marta San Luciano; Sarah Wang; Philip A Starr; Paul Larson; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Jill L Ostrem Journal: Stereotact Funct Neurosurg Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: David T Brocker; Brandon D Swan; Rosa Q So; Dennis A Turner; Robert E Gross; Warren M Grill Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Peter G Pappas; Carol A Kauffman; David R Andes; Cornelius J Clancy; Kieren A Marr; Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner; Annette C Reboli; Mindy G Schuster; Jose A Vazquez; Thomas J Walsh; Theoklis E Zaoutis; Jack D Sobel Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 9.079