RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. PURPOSE: To evaluate bacterial contamination during surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The participants of surgery and ventilation system have been known as the most significant sources of contamination. METHODS: Two pairs of air culture blood agar plate for G(+) bacteria and MacConkey agar plate for G(-) bacteria were placed at 3 different locations in a conventional operation room: in the surgical field, under the airflow of local air conditioner, and pathway to door while performing spine surgeries. One pair of culture plates was retrieved after one hour and the other pair was retrieved after 3 hours. The cultured bacteria were identified and number of colonies was counted. RESULTS: There was no G(-) bacteria identified. G(+) bacteria grew on all 90 air culture blood agar plates. The colony count of one hour group was 14.5±5.4 in the surgical field, 11.3±6.6 under the local air conditioner, and 13.1±8.7 at the pathway to the door. There was no difference among the 3 locations. The colony count of 3 hours group was 46.4±19.5, 30.3±12.9, and 39.7±15.2, respectively. It was more at the surgical field than under the air conditioner (p=0.03). The number of colonies of one hour group was 13.0±7.0 and 3 hours group was 38.8±17.1. There was positive correlation between the time and the number of colonies (r=0.76, p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional operation room was contaminated by G(+) bacteria. The degree of contamination was most high at the surgical field. The number of bacteria increased right proportionally to the time.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates and types of a surgical site infection according to the surgical options in spine surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Scant literatures exist on the difference of surgical site infection according to the surgical methods. We presumed that the incidence of infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) was higher than posterior or posterolateral fusion (PF, PLF) due to several reasons. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made on the patients who received instrumented spinal fusion surgeries from 2000 to 2009. The differences of surgical site infection rates and characteristics were compared between the patients who received PF or PLF (group I) and PLIF (group II). In addition, the infection rate according to the graft options and number of cages was compared in group II. RESULTS: A significant difference (P = 0.003) of infection rate between group I (0.3%, 3 cases out of 974) and group II (1.37%, 29 cases out of 2110) was observed. In group I, 67% of infections were wound infections and 33% were osteomyelitis. In group II, 23% were wound infections, 73% were osteomyelitis, and 4% were osteomyelitis combined with wound infection. Significant increase of infection rate was observed in the single cage group (P = 0.001) and mainly local bone grafted group (P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The infection rate of PLIF was higher than that of PF or PLF. Considering the increased infection rate in local bone grafted group and 52% of the infection cases after interbody fusion was osteomyelitis around interbody space, contaminated local bones and interbody space were suspected as major routes of contamination. The higher infection rate in single cage group than that of double cage group was attributed to vulnerability of remained avascular disk materials to infection.
