Unexpected intraoperative positive culture (UIPC) in presumed aseptic revision spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:2
作者
Aldahamsheh, Osama [1 ]
Burger, Lukas D. [1 ]
Evaniew, Nathan [1 ]
Swamy, Ganesh [1 ]
Jacobs, W. Bradley [1 ]
Thomas, Kenneth C. [1 ]
Nicholls, Fred [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calgary, Dept Surg, Spine Program, Div Orthoped Surg, 1403-29 St,NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9, Canada
关键词
Meta; -analysis; Revision spine surgery; Spine infection; Unexpected intraoperative culture; BACTERIAL-COLONIZATION; INFECTION; SONICATION; ARTHROPLASTY; DIAGNOSIS; IMPLANTS; FUSION; PREVALENCE; ETIOLOGY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.spinee.2022.10.016
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Unexpected intraoperative positive culture (UIPC) has recently become increasingly common in revision spine surgery, being implicated as an etiological factor in revision spine surgery indications such as implant failure or pseudoarthrosis. PURPOSE: Utilizing the available literature, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of UIPC, and its clinical importance in patients following presumed aseptic revision spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis and systematic review.METHODS: Multiple databases and reference articles were searched until May 2022. The primary outcome was the pooled rate of UIPC, and the secondary outcomes were the microbiological profile of UIPC, the risk factors of UIPC, and the clinical fate of UIPC.RESULTS: Twelve studies were eligible for meta-analysis, with a total of 1,108 patients. The pooled rate of UIPC was 24.3% (95% CI=15.8%-35.5%) in adult patients, and 43.2% (95% CI=32.9%-54.2%) in pediatric patients. The UIPC rate was higher when both conventional wound culture and sonication were used together compared to sonication alone or conventional wound cul-ture alone. The rates were 28.9%, 23.6%, and 15.5 %, respectively. In adult and pediatric patients, the most commonly cultured organism was Cutibacterium acnes (42.5% vs 57.7%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (39.9% vs 30.5%). Male patients had a higher rate of UIPC (OR= 2.6, 95% CI=1.84-3.72, p<.001), as did patients with a longer fusion construct (MD=0.76, 95% CI=0.27-1.25, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled rate of UIPC in aseptic spine revision surgery was 24.3% and 43.2% in adult and pediatric patients respectively. The most common organisms were C. acnes and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. The impact of UIPC on patients' clinical outcomes is not fully understood. We are not able to recommend routine culture in revision spine surgery, however, adding sonication may aid in the diagnosis of UIPC. There is not enough evidence to recommend specific treatment strate-gies at this time, and further studies are warranted.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:492 / 503
页数:12
相关论文
共 67 条
  • [1] High rate of unexpected positive cultures in presumed aseptic revision of stiff shoulders after proximal humerus osteosynthesis
    Akguen, Doruk
    Peters, Paulina-Maria
    Maziak, Nina
    Plachel, Fabian
    Minkus, Marvin
    Moroder, Philipp
    [J]. BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [2] Appendix D, QUALITY ASSESSMENT F
  • [3] Infections after spinal correction and fusion for spinal deformities in childhood and adolescence
    Bachy, Manon
    Bouyer, Benjamin
    Vialle, Raphael
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2012, 36 (02) : 465 - 469
  • [4] Borenstein M., 1999, COMPREHENSIVE METAAN
  • [5] Occult infection in pseudarthrosis revision after spinal fusion
    Burkhard, Marco D.
    Loretz, Ruben
    Uckay, Ilker
    Bauer, David E.
    Betz, Michael
    Farshad, Mazda
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 21 (03) : 370 - 376
  • [6] Prevalence of Occult Infections in Posterior Instrumented Spinal Fusion
    Callanan, Tucker C.
    Abjornson, Celeste
    DiCarlo, Edward
    Henry, Michael
    Sama, Andrew A.
    Girardi, Federico P.
    Schroeder, Josh
    Kiely, Paul
    Lebl, Darren R.
    Cammisa, Frank P., Jr.
    [J]. CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 34 (01): : 25 - 31
  • [7] Carlson BC, 2021, SPINE, V176, P139, DOI [10.1097/BRS.0000000000003311.Implant, DOI 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003311.IMPLANT]
  • [8] Converting Among Effect Sizes, 2009, INTR MET, DOI [10.1002/9780470743386.ch7, DOI 10.1002/9780470743386.CH7]
  • [9] Understanding biofilm resistance to antibacterial agents
    Davies, D
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY, 2003, 2 (02) : 114 - 122
  • [10] Deeks J.J.H.J., 2008, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, P243, DOI 10.1002/9780470712184.ch9