Hersh Andrew, Young Robert, Pennington Zach, Ehresman Jeff, Ding Andy, Kopparapu Srujan, Cottrill Ethan, Sciubba Daniel M, Theodore Nicholas
J Neurosurg Spine. 2021 Jul 9;35(3):376-388. doi: 10.3171/2020.12.SPINE201300. Print 2021 Sep 1.
Currently, no consensus exists as to whether patients who develop infection of the surgical site after undergoing instrumented fusion should have their implants removed at the time of wound debridement. Instrumentation removal may eliminate a potential infection nidus, but removal may also destabilize the patient's spine. The authors sought to summarize the existing evidence by systematically reviewing published studies that compare outcomes between patients undergoing wound washout and instrumentation removal with outcomes of patients undergoing wound washout alone. The primary objectives were to determine 1) whether instrumentation removal from an infected wound facilitates infection clearance and lowers morbidity, and 2) whether the chronicity of the underlying infection affects the decision to remove instrumentation.
PRISMA guidelines were used to review the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify studies that compared patients with implants removed and patients with implants retained. Outcomes of interest included mortality, rate of repeat wound washout, and loss of correction.
Fifteen articles were included. Of 878 patients examined in these studies, 292 (33%) had instrumentation removed. Patient populations were highly heterogeneous, and outcome data were limited. Available data suggested that rates of reoperation, pseudarthrosis, and death were higher in patients who underwent instrumentation removal at the time of initial washout. Three studies recommended that instrumentation be uniformly removed at the time of wound washout. Five studies favored retaining the original instrumentation. Six studies favored retention in early infections but removal in late infections.
The data on this topic remain heterogeneous and low in quality. Retention may be preferred in the setting of early infection, when the risk of underlying spine instability is still high and the risk of mature biofilm formation on the implants is low. However, late infections likely favor instrumentation removal. Higher-quality evidence from large, multicenter, prospective studies is needed to reach generalizable conclusions capable of guiding clinical practice.
目前,对于接受器械融合手术后发生手术部位感染的患者,在伤口清创时是否应取出植入物尚无共识。取出器械可能消除潜在的感染病灶,但也可能使患者的脊柱失稳。作者试图通过系统回顾已发表的研究来总结现有证据,这些研究比较了接受伤口冲洗和器械取出的患者与仅接受伤口冲洗的患者的结局。主要目的是确定:1)从感染伤口取出器械是否有助于清除感染并降低发病率;2)潜在感染的病程是否影响取出器械的决策。
使用PRISMA指南对PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Scopus、科学网和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库进行检索,以识别比较取出植入物的患者和保留植入物的患者的研究。感兴趣的结局包括死亡率、再次伤口冲洗率和矫正丢失情况。
纳入了15篇文章。在这些研究中检查的878例患者中,292例(33%)取出了器械。患者群体高度异质,结局数据有限。现有数据表明,初次冲洗时取出器械的患者再次手术、假关节形成和死亡的发生率更高。三项研究建议在伤口冲洗时统一取出器械。五项研究倾向于保留原器械。六项研究倾向于在早期感染时保留器械,而在晚期感染时取出。
关于该主题的数据仍然异质且质量较低。在早期感染的情况下可能更倾向于保留器械,此时潜在脊柱失稳的风险仍然很高,而植入物上形成成熟生物膜的风险较低。然而,晚期感染可能更倾向于取出器械。需要来自大型、多中心、前瞻性研究的更高质量证据,以得出能够指导临床实践的可推广结论。