High Prevalence of Biofilms on Retrieved Implants from Aseptic Pseudarthrosis Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Recent literature has associated pseudarthrosis and pedicle screw loosening with subchronic infection at the pedicle of the vertebra. The positive culture results of a previous retrieval analysis show that such patients have a high frequency of bacterial contamination. The objective of this study is to visually capture the architecture of these undiagnosed infections, which have been described in other studies as biofilms on supposedly "aseptic" screw loosening. METHODS: Explants from 10 consecutive patients undergoing revision spine surgery for pseudarthrosis were collected and fixed in glutaraldehyde solution. Each of these implants was imaged thoroughly by using scanning electron microscopy and x-ray spectroscopy to evaluate the architecture of the biofilm. Additionally, eight patient swabs from tissues around the implants were sent for cultures to assess bacterial infiltration in tissues beyond the biofilm. The implants were also analyzed using energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. The exclusion criteria included clinically diagnosed infection (current or previous) and/or mechanical failure of the implant due to falls/accidents. RESULTS: The study was successful in capturing the visual architecture of the biofilm on retrieved implants. A total of 77% of pseudarthrosis cases presented with loose pedicle screws, which were diagnosed by a preoperative computed tomography scan showing radiolucency along the screw track and were confirmed intraoperatively, and 72% of the cases showed biofilm on explants. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of the clinical presentation of infection, impregnated bacteria could form a biofilm around an implant, and this biofilm can remain undetected via contemporary diagnostic methods, including swabbing. Implant biofilm is frequently present in "aseptic" pseudarthrosis cases.

Updates on Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Preoperative and Intraoperative Contamination of Implants in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.

The current communication seeks to provide an updated narrative review on latest methods of reducing implant contaminations used during spine surgery. Recent literature review has shown that both preoperative reprocessing and intraoperative handling of implants seem to contaminate implants. In brief, during preoperative phase, the implants undergo repeated bulk cleaning with dirty instruments from the OR, leading to residue buildup at the interfaces and possibly on the surfaces too. This, due to its concealed nature, remains unnoticed by the SPD (sterile processing department) or other hospital staff. Nevertheless, these can be avoided by using individually prepackaged presterilized implants. In the intraoperative phase, the implants (in the sterile field) are directly touched by the scrub tech with soiled (assisting the surgeon dispose the tissues from the instruments in use) gloves for loading onto an insertion device. It is then kept exposed on the working table (either separately or next to the used instruments as the pedicles hole are being prepared). Latest investigation has shown that by the time it is implanted in the patient, it can harbor up to 10e7 bacterial colony-forming units. The same implants were devoid of such colony-forming units, when sheathed by an impermeable sterile sheath around the sterile implant.

A Multicenter Trial Demonstrating Presence or Absence of Bacterial Contamination at the Screw-Bone Interface Owing to Absence or Presence of Pedicle Screw Guard, Respectively, During Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess bacterial contamination in current practices of pedicle screw handling and comparing it to a novel method of using an intraoperative, sterile implant guard for screws. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative infections occur at the higher end of 2%-13%, as cited in the literature, and are underestimated due to various reasons in such publications. Despite concerns associated with vancomycin application immediately before closure, it is theoretically impossible to irrigate the screw-bone interface postimplantation. Consequently, any contamination of pedicle screw before implantation is permanent, and has the potential to cause deep-bone infection, or hardware loosening due to encapsulation of biofilm between the bone and the screw. Therefore, continued vigilance and effective preventive measures should be undertaken if available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of presterile individually-packaged pedicle screws, one incased in a sterile, protective guard (group 1: G) and the other without such a guard (group 2: NG), 31 samples in each group were distributed over 28 spinal fusion surgeries at 5 independent hospitals groups. Each were loaded onto the insertion device by the scrub tech and left on the sterile table. Twenty minutes later, the lead surgeon who had just finished preparing the surgical site, handles the pedicle screw, to check the fit with the insertion device. Then, instead of implantation, it was transferred to a sterile container using fresh sterile gloves for bacterial analysis. RESULTS: The standard unguarded pedicle screws presented bioburden in the range of 10 to 10 colonies forming units per screw, whereas the guarded pedicle screws showed no bioburden. CONCLUSION: Standard, current, handling of pedicle screws leads to bacterial contamination, which can be avoided if the screws are sterilely prepackaged with an intraoperative guard (preinstalled).

Harboring Contaminants in Repeatedly Reprocessed Pedicle Screws.

STUDY DESIGN: It consisted of evaluation of the pedicle screws for presence of residual nonmicrobial contaminants and tabulation of the minimum steps and time required for reprocessing implants as per guidelines and its comparison with actual practice. OBJECTIVE: An evaluation of the nonmicrobial contaminants prevalent on the pedicle screws used for spine surgery and the underlying practice cause behind the source. METHODS: The first component consisted of a random selection of 6 pedicle screws and its assessment using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. The second component consisted of review of implant reprocessing guidelines and its applicability. RESULTS: Three types of contaminants were identified: corrosion, saccharide of unknown origin, and soap residue mixed with and were mostly present at the interfaces with low permeability. In addition, manufacturer's guideline recommends 19 hours of reprocessing, whereas the real-time observation revealed a turnaround time of 1 hour 17 minutes. CONCLUSION: Repeatedly reprocessed pedicle screws host corrosion, carbohydrate, fat, and soap, which could be a cause of surgical site infection and inflammatory responses postsurgery. The cause behind it is the impracticality of repeated cleaning and inspection of such devices.

Efficacy of Intraoperative Implant Prophylaxis in Reducing Intraoperative Microbial Contamination.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective single-center study. OBJECTIVES: Assess to what degree contamination of pedicle screws occur in standard intraoperative practice and if use of an impermeable guard could mitigate or reduce such an occurrence. METHODS: Two groups of sterile prepackaged pedicle screws, one with an intraoperative guard (group 1) and the other without such a guard (group 2), each consisting of 5 samples distributed over 3 time points, were loaded onto the insertion device by the scrub tech and left on the sterile table. Approximately 20 minutes later, the lead surgeon who had just finished preparing the surgical site touches the pedicle screw. Then instead of implantation it was transferred to a sterile container using fresh clean gloves for bacterial and gene analysis. Guarded screw implies that even after unwrapping from the package, the screw carries an impermeable barrier along its entire length, which is only removed seconds prior to implantation. RESULTS: The standard unguarded pedicle screws presented bioburden in the range of 105 to 107 (colony forming units/implant) with bacterial genus mostly consisting of Staphylococcus and Micrococcus, the 2 most common genera found in surgical site infection reports. The common species among them were Staphylococcus epidermis, Staphylococcus aureus, Micrococcus luteus, and Staphylococcus pettenkoferi, whereas the guarded pedicle screws showed no bioburden. CONCLUSIONS: Shielding the pedicle screws intraoperatively using a guard provides a superior level of asepsis than currently practiced. All unshielded pedicles screws were carrying bioburden of virulent bacterial species, which provides an opportunity for the development of postoperative infections.

Implant Prophylaxis: The Next Best Practice Toward Asepsis in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A literature review. OBJECTIVES: An evaluation of the contaminants prevalent on implants used for surgery and the aseptic methods being employed against them. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 for studies evaluating the contaminants present on spine implants, and associated pre- and intraoperative implant processing and handling methodology suggested to avoid them. Systematic reviews, observational studies, bench-top studies, and expert opinions were included. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified whose major focus was the asepsis of implants to reduce the incidence of surgical site infection incidences during surgery. These studies measured the colony forming units of bacteria on sterilized implants and/or gloves from the surgeon, scrub nurse, and assistants, as well as reductions of surgical site infection rates in spine surgery due to changes in implant handling techniques. Additionally, the search included assessments of endotoxins and carbohydrates present on reprocessed implants. The suggested changes to surgical practice based on these studies included handling implants with only fresh gloves, keeping implants covered until the immediate time of use, reducing operating room traffic, avoiding reprocessing of implants (ie, providing terminally sterilized implants), and avoiding touching the implants altogether. CONCLUSIONS: Both reprocessing (preoperative) and handling (intraoperative) of implants seem to lead to contamination of sterilized implants. Using a terminally sterilized device may mitigate reprocessing (preoperative implant prophylaxis), whereas the use of fresh gloves for handling each implant and/or a permanent shielding technique (intraoperative implant prophylaxis) could potentially avoid recontamination at the theatre.

Biomechanical comparison of a novel percutaneous transfacet device and a traditional posterior system for single level fusion.

Posterior spinal fusions are indicated for a variety of spinal disorders. Transfacet fixation minimizes soft tissue disruption and preserves the adjacent facet joint. This technique is uncommon due to concerns with biomechanical stability and proper implant placement. For these reasons, a length adjustable implant may obviate the clinical concerns but necessitates biomechanical study. This study evaluated the in vitro biomechanical stability between a novel transfacet fixation device compared with standard pedicle screws during cyclic physiologic loading in a human cadaveric model. Cadaveric L4-L5 lumbar motion segments from 16 human spines were tested in cyclic flexion/extension, lateral bending, and torsion after insertion of either transfacet fixation devices or 5.5 mm pedicle screw instrumentation. A load cell was used to measure the compressive forces on the anterior column during testing. Motion segment stiffness and anterior column compression were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance (P<0.05). The transfacet device demonstrated a statistically similar stiffness when compared with the pedicle screw system for each test direction. For anterior column loading during physiologic testing, there were no biomechanical differences between stabilization systems. Percutaneous transfacet fixation is an attractive surgical option for single-level spinal fusions. A biomechanical evaluation of a novel device for this application demonstrated similar stability to a pedicle screw system. The length adjustability of the device may alleviate concerns for precise device placement and the biomechanical stability may produce similar rates and quality of posterior spinal fusions.

The use of recombinant factor VIIa for severe intractable bleeding during spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A report on the use of recombinant activated factor VII in 4 patients who developed severe intractable bleeding and coagulopathy during spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of recombinant activated factor VII for hemostasis during spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recombinant activated factor VII is indicated for the treatment of bleeding episodes and the prevention of bleeding during surgery in patients with hemophilia with inhibitors. However, its use in adults undergoing spine surgery has not yet been reported. METHODS: Four patients who underwent multilevel spine surgery through an anterior approach incurred massive bleeding and subsequently became coagulopathic. Standard hemostatic techniques were performed and blood products were transfused. Persistence of the bleeding prompted the use of recombinant activated factor VII. RESULTS: Treatment with recombinant activated factor VII led to an improvement in prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time and brought about cessation in gross, nonsurgical bleeding intraoperatively. No clinically relevant thrombotic complications related to the drug were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant activated factor VII is promising as an adjunctive hemostatic agent for patients with perioperative bleeding problems during spine surgery. Efficacy is seen even at low doses.