Is Intraoperative Local Vancomycin Powder the Answer to Surgical Site Infections in Spine Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort comparative study of all patients who underwent instrumented spine surgery at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) between the treatment (vancomycin) and the control group (no vancomycin) in patients undergoing instrumented spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SSI after spine surgery is a dreaded complication associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic intraoperative local vancomycin powder to the wound has been recently adopted as a strategy to reduce SSI but results have been variable. METHODS: In the present study, there were 117 (30%) patients in the treatment group and 272 (70%) patients in the comparison cohort. All patients received identical standard operative and postoperative care procedures based on protocolized department guidelines. The present study compared the rate of SSI with and without the use of prophylactic intraoperative local vancomycin powder in patients undergoing various instrumented spine surgery, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: The overall rate of SSI was 4.7% with a decrease in infection rate found in the treatment group (0.9% vs. 6.3%). This was statistically significant (P = 0.049) with an odds ratio of 0.13 (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.99). The treatment group had a significantly shorter onset of infection (5 vs. 16.7 days; P < 0.001) and shorter duration of infection (8.5 vs. 26.8 days; P < 0.001). The most common causative organism was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (35.2%). Patient diagnosis, surgical approach, and intraoperative blood loss were significant risk factors for SSI after multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic Intraoperative local vancomycin powder reduces the risk and morbidity of SSI in patients undergoing instrumented spine surgery. P. aeruginosa infection is common in the treatment arm. Future prospective randomized controlled trials in larger populations involving other spine surgeries with a long-term follow-up duration are recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Clinical Decision Rules for Paediatric Minor Head Injury: Are CT Scans a Necessary Evil?

INTRODUCTION: High performing clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been derived to predict which head-injured child requires a computed tomography (CT) of the brain. We set out to evaluate the performance of these rules in the Singapore population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective observational cohort study of children aged less than 16 who presented to the emergency department (ED) from April 2014 to June 2014 with a history of head injury. Predictor variables used in the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH), Children's Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) CDRs were collected. Decisions on CT imaging and disposition were made at the physician's discretion. The performance of the CDRs were assessed and compared to current practices. RESULTS: A total of 1179 children were included in this study. Twelve (1%) CT scans were ordered; 6 (0.5%) of them had positive findings. The application of the CDRs would have resulted in a significant increase in the number of children being subjected to CT (as follows): CATCH 237 (20.1%), CHALICE 282 (23.9%), PECARN high- and intermediate-risk 456 (38.7%), PECARN high-risk only 45 (3.8%). The CDRs demonstrated sensitivities of: CATCH 100% (54.1 to 100), CHALICE 83.3% (35.9 to 99.6), PECARN 100% (54.1 to 100), and specificities of: CATCH 80.3% (77.9 to 82.5), CHALICE 76.4% (73.8 to 78.8), PECARN high- and intermediate-risk 61.6% (58.8 to 64.4) and PECARN high-risk only 96.7% (95.5 to 97.6). CONCLUSION: The CDRs demonstrated high accuracy in detecting children with positive CT findings but direct application in areas with low rates of significant traumatic brain injury (TBI) is likely to increase unnecessary CT scans ordered. Clinical observation in most cases may be a better alternative.