ReviewDer Orthopade2018
[Infections after reconstructive spinal interventions : How do I deal with them?]
Review in Der Orthopade, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical presentation and diagnosis of acute postoperative spinal implant infection (PSII).Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Review
- [Low-grade-infections after spondylodeses-A chameleon? : Current findings and therapeutic strategies].Der Orthopade · 2020Review
- [Peak timing for complications after spine surgery].Der Orthopade · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
basicsPostoperative surgical site infections of the spine have been described in up to 20% of patients and can result in serious consequences for the patient and substantial treatment costs. Typical bacteria often arise from skin or fecal flora. Various risk factors for infection have been described, including obesity, diabetes, high ASA scores, as well as intraoperative factors such as heavy blood loss, dural tears, or several revision procedures. Consequently, the prophylaxis with pre- and postoperative risk minimization is of particular importance. TREATMENT: When an infection has developed, it is important to carry out early operative revision involving tissue debridement, lavage and acquiring microbiological samples for culture. If the infection presents early, the instrumentation can often be retained. Adjuvant measures such as negative pressure wound treatment may improve the outcome. In late-onset infections, due to the biofilm production on the instrument surface or in cases of implant loosening, one should attempt to remove the instrumentation, and in cases of instability replace it. This article deals with the current literature on the subject and provides an overview of the data with regard to peri- and postoperative infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.