Does Addition of Tobramycin Powder Reduce Infection Rates After Spine Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of tobramycin and vancomycin powder in reducing surgical site infections in posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. METHODS: A multicenter, electronic database search was conducted for all patients who underwent posterior instrumented lumbar fusions. RESULTS: The addition of vancomycin powder decreased postoperative infections from an incidence of 5.7% down to a rate of 2.0%. This difference was statistically significant (P = .018). The addition of tobramycin powder to the wound in addition to vancomycin further decreased the infection rate down to 1.8%. The postoperative infection rate was statistically significant (P = .041) when compared with the no-powder group. However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00) when compared with vancomycin alone. There was also a trend toward gram-negative organisms with the addition of more antibiotic powder. In the control group, for example, the organisms cultured were 66% methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and 33% gram-negative organisms. In the vancomycin group, 30% of the organisms cultured were Staphylococcus aureus and 60% gram-negative organisms. In the vancomycin and tobramycin powder group, 100% of the organisms cultured were gram-negative. CONCLUSIONS: There is a reduction in surgical site infections with addition of antibiotic powder to the wound prior to closure. However, the reduction in the infection rate was not as great with the addition of tobramycin powder to vancomycin alone and there was a noticeable change in the spectrum of organism cultured with this addition. Clinicians should consider the risk-to-benefit ratio in each case when deciding to use antibiotic powder.

Complications associated with intrathecal morphine in spine surgery: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental intrathecal morphine (ITM) represents an option to manage postoperative pain after spine surgery due to ease of administration and ability to confer effective short-term analgesia at low dosages. However, whether ITM increases risk of surgical site infections (SSI), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and incidental dural tears (IDT) has not been investigated. Therefore, this study was performed to determine the rates of SSI, CSF leak, and IDT in patients that received ITM. METHODS: Patients that underwent posterior instrumented fusion from January 2010 to 2016 that received ITM were compared to controls with respect to demographic, medical, surgical, and outcome data. Fisher's exact test was used to compare rates of SSI, CSF leak, and IDT between groups. Poisson regression was used to analyze complication rates after adjusting for the influence of covariates and potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 512 records were analyzed. ITM was administered to 78 patients prior to wound closure. The remaining 434 patients compromised the control group. IDT was significantly more common among patients receiving ITM (P=0.009). Differences in rates of CSF leak and SSI were not statistically significant (P=0.373 and P=0.564, respectively). After compensating for additional variables, Poisson regression revealed a significant increase in rates of IDT (P=0.007) according to ITM injection and advanced age (P=0.014). There was no significant difference in rates of CSF leak or SSI after accounting for the additional variables (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ITM for pain control in posterior instrumented spinal fusion surgery was linked to increased likelihood of IDT but not CSF leaks or SSI. Age was also noted to be a significant predictor of IDT. Spine surgeons should weigh potential risks against benefits when deciding whether to administer ITM for postoperative pain management following spine surgery.

View of U.S. spine surgeons regarding cost reduction measures.

BACKGROUND: This is a cross-sectional study. Our objective is to survey spine surgeons' views of responsibility to reduce healthcare costs, enthusiasm for cost reduction strategies, and agreement regarding roles in cost containment. The rising cost of healthcare has spurred debate about reducing expenditures. Previous studies have found that attitudes of anesthesiologists are predominantly in alignment with those of American physicians, but less is known about the views of spine surgeons. METHODS: After obtaining institutional approval, an electronic survey was disseminated to active members of AO Spine North America (AOSNA) via email. Respondents were asked eight questions about their age, gender, years in practice, practice facility, political views and opinions regarding management of healthcare costs. RESULTS: From 91 respondents, most were under the age of 60 years (87%), male (96%), and in practice for less than 30 years (91%), practiced at university hospitals (47%) and held politically conservative views (47%). Most responsibility was allocated to hospital and health systems, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and device manufacturers. Respondents were most enthusiastic about rooting out fraud and abuse and aware of their role in managing the cost of healthcare. Spine surgeons who were in practice for longer were more enthusiastic about reducing cost by reducing overall physician reimbursement via bundled payments, Medicare payment reduction, ending fee-for-service, penalizing surgeons for patient readmissions, and lowering compensation to individual spine surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons allocated responsibility to reduce healthcare costs to healthcare systems, were most enthusiastic about eliminating wasteful spending, and were in agreement regarding their responsibility to control the costs of healthcare. Compared to US physicians of various specialties and anesthesiologists, spine surgeons assigned less responsibility to trials lawyers and expressed markedly less enthusiasm for limiting access to expensive treatments.

Preferences of Spine Surgeons With Regard to Management of Intraoperative Durotomy: A Survey of Current Management.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine spine surgeons' preferences for the intraoperative and postoperative management of intraoperative durotomy (IDT) in decompression and spinal fusion surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management guidelines for IDT remain elusive. Traditionally, management consists of intraoperative suturing and postoperative bed rest. However, preferences of North American spine surgeons may vary, particularly according to type of surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spine surgeons of AO Spine North America (AOSNA) were surveyed online anonymously to determine which techniques they preferred to manage IDT in decompression and fusion. Differences in preferences according to surgery type were compared using the Fisher exact test. A series of linear regressions were conducted to identify demographic predictors of spine surgeons' preferences. RESULTS: Of 217 respondents, most were male (95%), orthopedic surgeons (70%), practiced at an academic center (50%), were in practice 0-19 years (71%) and operated on 100-300 patients per year (70%). The majority of surgeons applied sutures (93%-96%) and sealant (82%-84%). Surgeons also used grafts (26%-27%), drains (18%), other techniques (4%-5%), blood patch (2%-3%), or no intraoperative management (1%-2%). Postoperatively, most surgeons recommended bed rest (74%-75%). Antibiotics (22%), immediate mobilization (18%-20%), reoperation (14%-16%), other techniques (6%), or no postoperative management (5%) were also preferred. Management preferences did not vary significantly between decompression and fusion surgeries (all P-values>0.05). Specialty, practice facility, years in practice, and patients per year were identified as independent predictors of IDT management preferences (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although North American spine surgeons preferred to manage IDT with sutures augmented by sealant followed by bed rest after surgery, less common techniques were also preferred during the intraoperative and postoperative periods. Notably, intraoperative and postoperative IDT management preferences did not change in accordance to the type of surgery being conducted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Perioperative Ketamine for Analgesia in Spine Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of perioperative supplemental ketamine to reduce postoperative opioid analgesic consumption following spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although low-dose supplemental ketamine has been known to reduce pain after surgery, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether ketamine can be effective to reduce opioid consumption following spine surgery. METHODS: Comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for prospective RCTs, Web of Science, and Scopus. Patients who received supplemental ketamine were compared with the control group in terms of postoperative morphine equivalent consumption, pain scores, and adverse events. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to describe continuous outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were applied to dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs comprising 649 patients were selected for inclusion into the meta-analysis. Patients who were administered adjunctive ketamine exhibited less cumulative morphine equivalent consumption at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours following spine surgery (all Ps < 0.05). The ketamine group also reported lower postoperative pain scores at 6, 12, and 24 hours (all Ps < 0.05). None of the adverse events studied attained statistical significance (all Ps > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Supplemental perioperative ketamine reduces postoperative opioid consumption up to 24 hours following spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Variables Affecting Return to Work After Spinal Surgery in a Non-workers' Compensation Population: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Return-to-work (RTW) outcomes following spine surgery are critical information for patients aspiring to return to employment following surgical correction. Among patients receiving workers' compensation (WC), spinal surgery has been repeatedly linked to poor RTW rates. However, among patients not receiving WC, the percentage of patients who return to employment is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 326 non-WC patients who underwent spinal surgery at two institutions. We determined RTW status and analyzed potential predictors of RTW status. RESULTS: Preoperative work status was the only markedly positive predictor of RTW status; patients who were working prior to their surgery were more likely to return to work after surgery. Patients with at least one comorbidity were less likely to return to employment. All other sociodemographic, surgery-related, and complication variables did not reach statistical significance. However, smoking status, short fusion, and cervical fusion were clinically relevant predictors of a negative RTW status. DISCUSSION: Among non-WC patients, employment before surgery was a positive predictor for RTW status. For patients with a positive comorbidity status, a lower likelihood of returning to employment is predicted. Randomized trials are needed to fully explore the effect of predictor variables on RTW status among non-WC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients not receiving WC who underwent spinal surgery had a high chance of returning to employment within 1 year if they had been working at least 3 months before the date of surgery.

Intrathecal Morphine in Spine Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of intrathecal morphine (ITM) in reducing postoperative pain and opioid analgesic consumption following spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of ITM following adult spine surgery is of particular interest because of the ease of access to the thecal sac and the potential to provide adequate analgesia at low doses. However, previous studies of ITM have been limited by small sample sizes and conflicting results. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for prospective RCTs was performed by two independent reviewers. Postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, and complications were documented from the identified studies. Standard mean differences (SMDs) were applied to continuous outcomes and odds ratios were determined for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Eight RCTs involving 393 subjects met inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Patients receiving ITM (ITM group) as an adjunct to postoperative opioid analgesic were compared to patients receiving postoperative opioids only (control group). Postoperative morphine equivalent consumption was significantly lower during the first 24 hours postoperative in the ITM group (P < 0.001). Pain scores were similarly lower in the first 24 hours following spine surgery in those who received ITM (P < 0.001). In patients administered ITM, a greater percentage experienced pruritus (P < 0.001). Respiratory depression was solely encountered in the ITM group (P = 0.25). There were no significant differences between the ITM and control groups in terms of sedation (P = 0.18), nausea (P = 0.67), vomiting (P = 0.62), or length of stay (P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing spine surgery, use of ITM significantly reduced opioid analgesic consumption and Visual Analogue Schores pain scores compared to controls within the first 24 hours postoperatively. High-quality, follow-up RCTs with large sample sizes are recommended to determine the potential of supplementary ITM in spine surgery and complete the side effects profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.