Daniel G Kang1, Terrence F Holekamp2, Scott C Wagner3, Ronald A Lehman4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bldg 19, Rm #2101, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA. Electronic address: daniel.g.kang@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8057, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bldg 19, Rm #2101, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bldg 19, Rm #2101, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA; Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Deep surgical site infections (SSIs) following spinal surgery are a significant burden to the patient, patient's family, and the health-care system. Because of increasing pressures to reduce SSIs and control costs, some spine surgeons have begun placing lyophilized vancomycin powder directly into the surgical wound at the conclusion of the procedure. However, the literature supporting this practice remains limited. PURPOSE: To review the current literature examining the use of prophylactic intrasite vancomycin powder to control SSIs in spinal surgery and determine if any standard recommendations can be made. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: Ovid Medline and PubMed were searched to identify English language articles. RESULTS: No current guidelines are available for the use of intrasite vancomycin powder in preventing SSIs, and no standard dosage for the drug exists. Based on the limited literature and evidence currently available, there appears to be a protective effect of intrasite vancomycin powder on the incidence of SSI, without evidence of side effects. However, case reports do exist describing the systemic side effects after intrasite vancomycin powder during spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of the available evidence supporting the use of intrasite vancomycin powder in surgical wounds is limited, and its extrapolation should be performed with caution. Despite the lack of significant high-quality evidence available in the literature, many surgeons have adopted this practice; anecdotally, it continues to provide protection from infection without apparent significant risk of side effects. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Deep surgical site infections (SSIs) following spinal surgery are a significant burden to the patient, patient's family, and the health-care system. Because of increasing pressures to reduce SSIs and control costs, some spine surgeons have begun placing lyophilized vancomycin powder directly into the surgical wound at the conclusion of the procedure. However, the literature supporting this practice remains limited. PURPOSE: To review the current literature examining the use of prophylactic intrasite vancomycin powder to control SSIs in spinal surgery and determine if any standard recommendations can be made. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: Ovid Medline and PubMed were searched to identify English language articles. RESULTS: No current guidelines are available for the use of intrasite vancomycin powder in preventing SSIs, and no standard dosage for the drug exists. Based on the limited literature and evidence currently available, there appears to be a protective effect of intrasite vancomycin powder on the incidence of SSI, without evidence of side effects. However, case reports do exist describing the systemic side effects after intrasite vancomycin powder during spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of the available evidence supporting the use of intrasite vancomycin powder in surgical wounds is limited, and its extrapolation should be performed with caution. Despite the lack of significant high-quality evidence available in the literature, many surgeons have adopted this practice; anecdotally, it continues to provide protection from infection without apparent significant risk of side effects. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Gennadiy A Katsevman; Scott D Daffner; Nicholas J Brandmeir; Sanford E Emery; John C France; Cara L Sedney Journal: Spine J Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: James X Liu; Dalibel Bravo; John Buza; Thorsten Kirsch; Oran Kennedy; Andrew Rokito; Joseph D Zuckerman; Mandeep S Virk Journal: J Orthop Date: 2018-01-30
Authors: Alyssa G Ashbaugh; Xuesong Jiang; Jesse Zheng; Andrew S Tsai; Woo-Shin Kim; John M Thompson; Robert J Miller; Jonathan H Shahbazian; Yu Wang; Carly A Dillen; Alvaro A Ordonez; Yong S Chang; Sanjay K Jain; Lynne C Jones; Robert S Sterling; Hai-Quan Mao; Lloyd S Miller Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gabriel J Pavey; Peter M Formby; Benjamin W Hoyt; Scott C Wagner; Jonathan A Forsberg; Benjamin K Potter Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.176