Literature DB >> 23695383

Differences in sacral neuromodulation device infection rates based on preoperative antibiotic selection.

Allen M Haraway1, J Quentin Clemens, Chang He, Cynthia Stroup, Humphrey O Atiemo, Anne P Cameron.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: After SNM implantation the most significant complication that can occur is wound infection, which typically requires removal of all components. Such infections have been reported in 5-11 % of patients, but little is known about risk factors. The objective of this analysis is to determine our postoperative wound infection rate after SNM implantation, and examined various potential predictive factors. Our hypothesis is that perioperative antibiotic selection is related to the risk of infections.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent SNM implantation by one of three surgeons from 2007 to 2010. Preoperative antibiotics were administered according to surgeon preference, and included cefazolin alone, vancomycin alone, or vancomycin with gentamicin. Predictors of wound infection were evaluated using multivariate techniques. Variables examined included preoperative antibiotic regimen, surgeon, location (outpatient surgery center vs university hospital), gender, comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression and smoking), history of urinary tract infections, and preoperative skin preparation.
RESULTS: A total of 136 patients underwent SNM implantation, and 8 (5.9 %) experienced infections that required device explantation. Cefazolin alone was less effective in preventing infection compared with the other antibiotic regimens (p = 0.03). The odds of having an infection in cefazolin-treated patients was 7.3 times that of other patients treated with another antibiotic regimen. Seven out of the eight infections with explant grew Staphylococcus aureus resistant to cephalosporins. None of the other variables proved to be a statistically significant contributor.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative antibiotic selection was a significant factor in preventing subsequent infection and explantation following SNM placement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23695383     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2121-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  13 in total

1.  Management of voiding dysfunction with an implantable neuroprosthesis.

Authors:  S W Siegel
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 2.241

2.  Sacral (S3) segmental nerve stimulation as a treatment for urge incontinence in patients with detrusor instability: results of chronic electrical stimulation using an implantable neural prosthesis.

Authors:  J L Bosch; J Groen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Neuromodulation of sacral nerves for incontinence and voiding dysfunctions. Clinical results and complications.

Authors:  H E Dijkema; E H Weil; P T Mijs; R A Janknegt
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  Hardware-related infections after deep brain stimulation surgery: review of incidence, severity and management in 212 single-center procedures in the first year after implantation.

Authors:  Massimo Piacentino; Manuela Pilleri; Luigi Bartolomei
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2011-08-27       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 5.  Efficacy and adverse events of sacral nerve stimulation for overactive bladder: A systematic review.

Authors:  Nazema Y Siddiqui; Jennifer M Wu; Cindy L Amundsen
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.696

6.  Characteristics of infections in patients undergoing staged implantation for sacral nerve stimulation.

Authors:  Michael L Guralnick; Saraleen Benouni; R Corey O'Connor; Charles Edmiston
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Safety of prolonged sacral neuromodulation tined lead testing.

Authors:  Thomas M Kessler; Fiona C Burkhard; Helmut Madersbacher; Alexandra Kofler; Werner Poewe; Gustav Kiss
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.580

8.  Microbiological tined-lead examination: does prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing induce infection?

Authors:  Mirjam Huwyler; Gustav Kiss; Fiona C Burkhard; Helmut Madersbacher; Thomas M Kessler
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Infection rate of spinal cord stimulators after a screening trial period. A 53-month third party follow-up.

Authors:  Jan Rudiger; Simon Thomson
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2010-11-04

10.  Deep brain stimulator hardware-related infections: incidence and management in a large series.

Authors:  Karl A Sillay; Paul S Larson; Philip A Starr
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Sacral Neuromodulation Implant Infection: Risk Factors and Prevention.

Authors:  Calvin Lee; Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky; Marisa M Clifton; Sandip P Vasavada
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.092

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.