Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27514826›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2016

[Management of postoperative wound infections following spine surgery : First results of a multicenter study].

M Rickert, P Schleicher, C Fleege, M Arabmotlagh, M Rauschmann, F Geiger, K J Schnake

Abstract readMulticenter StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M RickertAbteilung für Wirbelsäulenorthopädie, Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Friedrichsheim gGmbH, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland. marcus.rickert@friedrichsheim.de.
P SchleicherZentrum für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, BG Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
C FleegeAbteilung für Wirbelsäulenorthopädie, Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Friedrichsheim gGmbH, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
M ArabmotlaghAbteilung für Wirbelsäulenorthopädie, Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Friedrichsheim gGmbH, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
M RauschmannAbteilung für Wirbelsäulenorthopädie, Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Friedrichsheim gGmbH, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
F GeigerKlinik für Wirbelsäulentherapie, Wirbelsäulenzentrum, Orthopädische Fachkliniken der Hessing Stiftung, Augsburg, Deutschland.
K J SchnakeZentrum für Wirbelsäulentherapie, Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Deutschland.
Orthopaedic University Hospital Friedrichsheim · DEBerufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main · DESchön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe number of spinal surgeries has increased significantly in the last decade, which has led to a correlating increase in the number of problems related to wound healing infection. Current literature has reported a spinal wound infection rate of 0.4 to 20 %. The gold standard for surgical restoration of the infection is to use supportive antibiotics, but this concept of wound management in infections is often not sufficiently standardized and shows a large variance between individual clinics. The present study is to first collect data on the number of wound infections, the clinic's internal standards, the use of methods and tools and the management of revisions in Germany. MATERIAL AND

methodsA questionnaire has been designed for detecting the number of postoperative wound infections, which need to be treated surgically, and the various treatment regimens used. The questionnaire was sent to all members of the DWG (n = 1275). An example of the questionnaire was to determine clinical internal standards and the procedure for the initial treatment of wound infection, the procedure for second look surgery and the number of revisions requested to infection healing.

resultsThe study has accepted 67 answer sheets covering a period from June 2013-November 2013. On average, the participating hospitals perform 582 spinal operations and an average of 8 revision surgeries due to infection annually. The average rate of infection was 1.7 %. 55 % reported having no fixed standard of care. 97 % reported wound irrigation and debridement during the first revision. Indication for second look revisions was based on the local examination of the wound conditions. On average 2.2 revisions had been performed to reach effective wound healing. 81 % of the colleagues showed readiness to participate in a multicenter trial.

conclusionThe results show that there is a need for uniform standards in the treatment of postoperative infections. Surgical debridement and lavage have a major role in the treatment of infection. The overall rate of postoperative infections, of the clinics surveyed, was approximately 1.7 % per year. The infections were healed with approximately 2 revisions utilizing variety of different treatment strategies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibiotic ProphylaxisCombined Modality TherapyDebridementFemaleGermanyHumansIncidenceLaminectomyMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Complication, postoperativeDebridementinfection, postoperativeSpinal columnTreatment

Identifiers

PMID27514826
OpenAlexW2511801373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.