• Hiroyuki Hayashi, Hideki Murakami, Satoru Demura, Satoshi Kato, Katsuhito Yoshioka, Kazuya Shinmura, Noriaki Yokogawa, Takayoshi Ishii, Xiang Fang, Toshiharu Shirai, and Hiroyuki Tsuchiya.
• Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takaramachi, Kanazawa 920-8641, Japan.
• Spine J. 2015 Jan 1;15(1):132-7.

Background ContextSurgical site infection (SSI) associated with instruments remains a serious and common complication in patients who undergo total en bloc spondylectomy (TES). It is very important that the risk factors for SSI are known to prevent it.PurposeThe purpose of the study was to identify independent risk factors for SSI after TES and evaluate the positive effect of iodine-supported spinal instruments in the prevention of SSI after TES.Study DesignThis is a retrospective clinical study.Patient SampleOne hundred twenty-five patients who underwent TES for vertebral tumor were evaluated.Outcome MeasuresIncidence rate of SSI, risk factors for SSI after TES, and safety of iodine-supported spinal instruments were the outcome measures.MethodsRisk factors for SSI were analyzed using logistic regression. In recent 69 patients with iodine-supported spinal instruments, the thyroid hormone levels in the blood were examined to confirm if iodine from the implant influenced thyroid function. Postoperative radiological evaluations were performed regularly.ResultsThe rate of SSI was 6.4% (8/125 patients). By multivariate logistic regression, combined anterior and posterior approach and nonuse of iodine-supported spinal instruments were associated with an increased risk of SSI. The rate of SSI without iodine-supported spinal instruments was 12.5%, whereas the rate with iodine-supported spinal instruments was 1.4%. This difference was statistically significant. There were no detected abnormalities of thyroid gland function with the use of iodine-supported instruments. Among the 69 patients with iodine-supported spinal instruments, 2 patients required additional surgery because of instrument failure. However, there were no obvious involvements with the use of iodine-supported spinal instruments.ConclusionsThis study identified combined anterior and posterior approach and nonuse of iodine-supported spinal instruments to be independent risk factors for SSI after TES. Iodine-supported spinal instrument was extremely effective for prevention of SSI in patients with compromised status, and it had no detection of cytotoxic or adverse effects on the patients.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

24 keywords...

hide…