James C Mamaril-Davis1, Pedro Aguilar-Salinas1, Mauricio J Avila1, Michel Villatoro-Villar2, Travis M Dumont3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arizona, 1501 N Campbell Avenue, Room 4303, Tucson, AZ, 32207, USA. 2. Department of Rheumatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arizona, 1501 N Campbell Avenue, Room 4303, Tucson, AZ, 32207, USA. tdumont@surgery.arizona.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In preparation for surgery, patients being treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended to either continue or withhold therapy perioperatively. Some of these drugs have known effects against bone healing, hence the importance of adequately managing them before and after surgery. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the current evidence for managing conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs in the perioperative period for elective spine surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of four databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The included manuscripts were methodically scrutinized for quality, postoperative infections, wound healing characteristics, bone fusion rates, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies were identified describing the management of conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs. There were 294 DMARD-treated patients described undergoing various spine surgeries such as craniovertebral junction fusions. Three of the studies involved exclusive continuation of DMARDs in the perioperative window; one study involved exclusive discontinuation of DMARDs in the perioperative window; and two studies involved continuation or discontinuation of DMARDs perioperatively. Of patients that continued DMARDs in the perioperative period, 13/50 patients (26.0%) had postoperative surgical site infections or wound dehiscence, 2/19 patients (10.5%) had delayed wound healing, and 32/213 patients (15.0%) had secondary revision surgeries. A fusion rate of 14/19 (73.6%) was described in only one study for patients continuing DMARDs perioperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The available published data may suggest a higher risk of wound healing concerns and lower than average bone fusion, although this may be under-reported given the current state of the literature.
BACKGROUND: In preparation for surgery, patients being treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended to either continue or withhold therapy perioperatively. Some of these drugs have known effects against bone healing, hence the importance of adequately managing them before and after surgery. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the current evidence for managing conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs in the perioperative period for elective spine surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of four databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The included manuscripts were methodically scrutinized for quality, postoperative infections, wound healing characteristics, bone fusion rates, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies were identified describing the management of conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs. There were 294 DMARD-treated patients described undergoing various spine surgeries such as craniovertebral junction fusions. Three of the studies involved exclusive continuation of DMARDs in the perioperative window; one study involved exclusive discontinuation of DMARDs in the perioperative window; and two studies involved continuation or discontinuation of DMARDs perioperatively. Of patients that continued DMARDs in the perioperative period, 13/50 patients (26.0%) had postoperative surgical site infections or wound dehiscence, 2/19 patients (10.5%) had delayed wound healing, and 32/213 patients (15.0%) had secondary revision surgeries. A fusion rate of 14/19 (73.6%) was described in only one study for patients continuing DMARDs perioperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The available published data may suggest a higher risk of wound healing concerns and lower than average bone fusion, although this may be under-reported given the current state of the literature.
Authors: William E Krauss; Jonathan M Bledsoe; Michelle J Clarke; Eric W Nottmeier; Mark A Pichelmann Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Josef S Smolen; Désirée van der Heijde; Klaus P Machold; Daniel Aletaha; Robert Landewé Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Georg Schett; Paul Emery; Yoshiya Tanaka; Gerd Burmester; David S Pisetsky; Esperanza Naredo; Bruno Fautrel; Ronald van Vollenhoven Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Christina Mertelsmann-Voss; Stephen Lyman; Ting Jung Pan; Susan Goodman; Mark P Figgie; Lisa A Mandl Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Michael M Ward; Atul Deodhar; Lianne S Gensler; Maureen Dubreuil; David Yu; Muhammad Asim Khan; Nigil Haroon; David Borenstein; Runsheng Wang; Ann Biehl; Meika A Fang; Grant Louie; Vikas Majithia; Bernard Ng; Rosemary Bigham; Michael Pianin; Amit Aakash Shah; Nancy Sullivan; Marat Turgunbaev; Jeff Oristaglio; Amy Turner; Walter P Maksymowych; Liron Caplan Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 15.483
Authors: Josef S Smolen; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Gerd R Burmester; Vivian Bykerk; Maxime Dougados; Paul Emery; Tore K Kvien; M Victoria Navarro-Compán; Susan Oliver; Monika Schoels; Marieke Scholte-Voshaar; Tanja Stamm; Michaela Stoffer; Tsutomu Takeuchi; Daniel Aletaha; Jose Louis Andreu; Martin Aringer; Martin Bergman; Neil Betteridge; Hans Bijlsma; Harald Burkhardt; Mario Cardiel; Bernard Combe; Patrick Durez; Joao Eurico Fonseca; Alan Gibofsky; Juan J Gomez-Reino; Winfried Graninger; Pekka Hannonen; Boulos Haraoui; Marios Kouloumas; Robert Landewe; Emilio Martin-Mola; Peter Nash; Mikkel Ostergaard; Andrew Östör; Pam Richards; Tuulikki Sokka-Isler; Carter Thorne; Athanasios G Tzioufas; Ronald van Vollenhoven; Martinus de Wit; Desirée van der Heijde Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 19.103