Literature DB >> 27274488

Postoperative comparison of the results from use of antibiotic prophylaxis for one and five days among patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis.

Charbel Jacob Júnior1, André Camatta de Assis1, Romulo Guerra Guimarães1, Igor Machado Barbosa1, José Lucas Batista Júnior1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the postoperative results from use of antibiotic prophylaxis for one and five days among patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis at up to three levels.
METHODS: Forty-three patients who all underwent lumbar arthrodesis due to degenerative disc disease at one, two or three levels were evaluated. They were divided randomly into two groups: one received antibiotic prophylaxis with cefalotin (1 g) and the other received the same antibiotic for five days. After the surgical intervention, the patients were evaluated at the time of hospital discharge, at the first return to the clinic (two weeks later) and 90 days after the date of the surgery with the surgical wound, with clinical examination of the surgical wound and laboratory tests on both groups.
RESULTS: It was observed that among the patients in the group with one day of antibiotic prophylaxis, 28.6% presented complications in the surgical wound, while in the group with five days, 27.9% presented complications.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a single dose of antibiotic prophylaxis is as effective as a regimen of multiple doses in lumbar arthrodesis surgery at up to three levels. Thus, the costs and risks of subjecting patients to hospitalization under a prolonged drug regimen are unjustifiable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antibiotic prophylaxis; Cephalosporins; Spinal surgery

Year:  2016        PMID: 27274488      PMCID: PMC4887444          DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop        ISSN: 2255-4971


Introduction

Low back pain with or without sciatica affects approximately 80% of the world population. Spinal instability, with or without disc disease, is an important etiology of this disease. In cases of low back pain refractory to conservative treatment, and after careful and accurate diagnosis of vertebral instability, lumbar arthrodesis (which consists of spinal fusion) is indicated. Although lumbar arthrodesis is a good method for pain relief, it also presents complications; one of the most important is surgical site infection (SSI). Although its incidence is low, its effects are devastating. SSI can lead to economic loss and injury to patients due to several factors, including the need for prolonged use of antimicrobial drugs and secondary surgery, among others. SSI is also highly disadvantageous for physicians from the cost-effectiveness standpoint. The risk factors associated with infection can be divided into those intrinsic to the patient, such as smoking, diabetes, malnutrition, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic use of corticosteroids, and neoplasms, and extrinsic, such as increased surgical time and high number of professionals in the surgical field. Some measures adopted in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative period may help to decrease the rate of postoperative infections. Among them, the maintenance of the aseptic field, attention to hemostasis, devitalized tissue minimization, proper use of drains, and antibiotic prophylaxis are highlighted. Antibiotic prophylaxis is the main method to prevent this complication. Its importance and efficiency during surgery are known: a significant reduction in the number of infections is observed in patients who receive it. Some studies have shown that a single dose of antibiotic is as effective as multiple-dose prophylaxis. However, this is not universally accepted. This study aimed to compare the postoperative results of patients on antibiotic prophylaxis for one and five days that underwent up to three-level lumbar arthrodesis.

Material and methods

Forty-three patients were assessed through a prospective, randomized study after approval from the institution's Research Ethics Committee (#12039513.9.0000.5065). All patients underwent lumbar fusion due to degenerative disc disease for one, two, or three levels. After surgery, patients were assessed on the day of discharge, at the first outpatient follow-up, after two weeks, and 90 days after surgical procedure, where clinical evaluation of the wound and laboratory tests for both groups were carried out. Inclusion criteria comprised patients who underwent lumbar arthrodesis in up to three levels due to degenerative diseases and who were followed-up at the orthopedic clinic of this institution. Patients who underwent lumbar arthrodesis for reasons other than degenerative disease, such as tumors or fractures, and those who underwent lumbar arthrodesis for more than three levels were excluded. After inclusion in the study, patients were assigned a number (one or two) by drawing lots, which defined the group they belonged to. Group 1 received antibiotic prophylaxis with first-generation cephalosporin for one day and Group 2, same antibiotic but for five days. Results of the clinical assessment of the surgical wound and pre- and postoperative laboratory tests (hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cell count, neutrophils, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein) were used for the analysis. The assessment of the surgical wound indicated the true importance of signs such as heat, redness, wound dehiscence, and purulent exudation. The chi-squared test (χ2) and binomial tests were used, considering p < 0.05 and n = 1.

Results

The study comprised 43 patients from November 2012 until April 2014; 22 were female, with mean age of 49.9 years (range 16–76 years). The observed complications were SSI, suture dehiscence, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and exacerbated hyperemia. In the present study, SSI rates of 2.3% and general complication rates of 27.8% were observed, as described in Table 1.
Table 1

Percentage of general complications.

Total patientsInfectionDehiscenceHyperemiaCerebrospinal fluid leaksSeromaTotal
431111812
The following analysis assessed the relationship between postoperative administration of antibiotics in two different periods: Group 1 (24 h) and Group 2 (five days), as shown in Table 2. In this analysis, “normal” and “altered” conditions were considered. “Normal” represents the group that was in perfect condition after the antibiotic administration period, and “altered,” those who had some type of abnormality, such as one-point dehiscence, infection, cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea, hyperemia, and seroma.
Table 2

Percentage of complications by group.

NormalAltered
Group
 24 h
  Absolute15621
  Relative71.4%28.6%100.0%
 Five days
  Absolute16622
  Relative72.7%27.3%100.0%
 Total
  Absolute311243
  Relative72.1%27.9%100.0%
The chi-squared test, as shown in Table 3, indicates that the hypothesis of association between antibiotic administration period and condition of the patient after this period was rejected (p = 0.924). Thus, there was no association between the fact that the antibiotic was given for either 24 h or five days and patient final status.
Table 3

Chi-squared test.

ValueSignificance p
Chi-squared test0.0090.924
However, one question can be raised: was there a difference between the proportions of normal and altered within each antibiotic administration period? Binomial tests for these proportions, as show in Table 4, indicate that in the 24-h group, there was no difference between the postoperative conditions, with a significance of 0.078 (>0.05).
Table 4

Binomial test.

ConditionsnObserved proportionsSignificance p
Groups
 Group 1Normal150.710.078
 Group 2Altered60.29
 Total211.00

Group = 24 h.

For the 24-h group, the difference between the proportions of normal and altered conditions was also not significant, with a significance of 0.052 (>0.05), as shown in Table 5.
Table 5

Difference between the proportions of conditions.

ConditionsnObserved proportionsSignificance p
Groups
 Group 1Normal60.270.052
 Group 2Altered160.73
 Total221.00

Group = five days.

These results corroborate the association test carried out a priori and indicate that longer periods of antibiotic use do not contribute to increased rates of “normal” outcome. However, it must be highlighted that such tests are more reliable when there is a larger number of occurrences for the analyzed categories.

Discussion

As discussed by Meyer et al., certain risk factors have been proven to increase the risk of SSI in patients operated for lumbar stenosis. Diabetes mellitus is the most important factor, in addition to advanced age, immunosuppression, smoking, chronic use of corticosteroids, multilevel surgery, obesity, hypertension, and liver cirrhosis. Considering that the overall rate of SSI in spinal surgery is low (<2%), the only patient in the study who presented SSI had two risk factors for infection (elderly, hypertensive), corresponding to 1/44 or 2.28% of the sample. Despite the emphasis on drug therapy, prevention of surgical infections goes well beyond antibiotic prophylaxis. No surgeon should underestimate the importance of appropriate preoperative care, following the 1999 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) SSI prevention guidelines, which recommends a reduction to <24 h of preoperative hospitalization, shaving with trimmer or scissors at <2 h, antibiotic prophylaxis initiated at up to 1 h, antisepsis of the operative field, and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis <24 h.3, 4 Although preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is effective to prevent bacterial infection, prolonged use of antibiotics is not justified. A meta-analysis by Barker did not identify any additional benefit from multiple-dose regimens. The prolonged use of antibiotics increases the risk of resistance of bacterial strains without benefits.6, 7, 8 Furthermore, the current orientation for clean spinal surgery is a single prophylactic dose9, 10; if a new dose is added, it should not exceed 24 h postoperative.11, 12, 13 In the present study, a 24-h antibiotic protocol versus 120-h was proposed; the individual health variables of each subject were disregarded, and the incidence of infection was assessed separately. The results presented demonstrated that there was no difference in the incidence of infection within groups, which does not justify the prolonged use of antibiotics. Other minor complications were observed in the study. Eight injuries had seroma, one had lush hyperemia, one evolved into cerebrospinal fluid fistula, and one had dehiscence of a suture caused by superficial infection. All these minor complications were not included as SSI because they were not deep, i.e., below the limit of muscular fascia.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that a single dose of antibiotic prophylaxis with first-generation cephalosporin is as effective as a pre- and postoperative multiple-dose regimen in lumbar arthrodesis surgery in up to three levels. The costs and risks of subjecting the patient to hospitalization under medication regimen are not justified.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
  12 in total

1.  Surgical site infection in lumbar surgeries, pre and postoperative antibiotics and length of stay: a case study.

Authors:  Inayat Ullah Khan; Muhammad Burhanuddin Janjua; Shumaila Hasan; Shahid Shah
Journal:  J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad       Date:  2009 Jul-Sep

2.  Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic therapy in spinal surgery: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fred G Barker
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  Randomized prospective study on prophylactic antibiotics in clean orthopedic surgery in one ward for 1 year.

Authors:  Daisuke Kato; Katsuhiko Maezawa; Ikuho Yonezawa; Yoshiyuki Iwase; Hiroshi Ikeda; Masahiko Nozawa; Hisashi Kurosawa
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.601

4.  Single-dose vs multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in instrumented lumbar fusion--a prospective study.

Authors:  Leslie C Hellbusch; Michele Helzer-Julin; Stephen E Doran; Lyal G Leibrock; Douglas J Long; Mark J Puccioni; William E Thorell; John S Treves
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  2008-01-18

5.  Antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in spine surgery.

Authors:  William C Watters; Jamie Baisden; Christopher M Bono; Michael H Heggeness; Daniel K Resnick; William O Shaffer; John F Toton
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Authors:  A J Mangram; T C Horan; M L Pearson; L C Silver; W R Jarvis
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.918

7.  Single versus multiple dose antibiotic prophylaxis in lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Matthew A Dobzyniak; Jeffrey S Fischgrund; Steve Hankins; Harry N Herkowitz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Antimicrobial prophylaxis for spinal surgery.

Authors:  Hiroshi Takahashi; Akihito Wada; Yasuaki Iida; Yuichiro Yokoyama; Susumu Katori; Keiji Hasegawa; Tsuge Shintaro; Toru Suguro
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 1.601

9.  Cefuroxime prophylaxis is effective in noninstrumented spine surgery: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  Christiane Petignat; Patrick Francioli; Stephan Harbarth; Luca Regli; François Porchet; Alain Reverdin; Benedict Rilliet; Nicolas de Tribolet; André Pannatier; Didier Pittet; Giorgio Zanetti
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in clean spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 973 cases.

Authors:  Luciano Mastronardi; Carlo Tatta
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  2004-02
View more
  1 in total

1.  Postdischarge antibiotic use for prophylaxis following spinal fusion.

Authors:  David K Warren; Katelin B Nickel; Jennifer H Han; Pam Tolomeo; Christopher J Hostler; Katherine Foy; Ian R Banks; Victoria J Fraser; Margaret A Olsen
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 3.254

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.