Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30443488›Full record

ReviewGlobal spine journal2018

Implant Prophylaxis: The Next Best Practice Toward Asepsis in Spine Surgery.

Aakash Agarwal, Christian Schultz, Vijay K Goel, Anand Agarwal, Neel Anand, Steve R Garfin, Jeffrey C Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global spine journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A prospective study to identify preoperative serum parameters for spinal implant infection detected by sonication fluid culture.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Aakash AgarwalUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Christian SchultzAPEX SPINE, München, Germany.
Vijay K GoelUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Anand AgarwalUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Neel AnandCedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Steve R GarfinUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jeffrey C WangUSC Spine Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of Toledo · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USUniversity of California San Diego · USLAC+USC Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA literature review.

objectivesAn evaluation of the contaminants prevalent on implants used for surgery and the aseptic methods being employed against them.

methodsPubMed was searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 for studies evaluating the contaminants present on spine implants, and associated pre- and intraoperative implant processing and handling methodology suggested to avoid them. Systematic reviews, observational studies, bench-top studies, and expert opinions were included.

resultsEleven studies were identified whose major focus was the asepsis of implants to reduce the incidence of surgical site infection incidences during surgery. These studies measured the colony forming units of bacteria on sterilized implants and/or gloves from the surgeon, scrub nurse, and assistants, as well as reductions of surgical site infection rates in spine surgery due to changes in implant handling techniques. Additionally, the search included assessments of endotoxins and carbohydrates present on reprocessed implants. The suggested changes to surgical practice based on these studies included handling implants with only fresh gloves, keeping implants covered until the immediate time of use, reducing operating room traffic, avoiding reprocessing of implants (ie, providing terminally sterilized implants), and avoiding touching the implants altogether.

conclusionsBoth reprocessing (preoperative) and handling (intraoperative) of implants seem to lead to contamination of sterilized implants. Using a terminally sterilized device may mitigate reprocessing (preoperative implant prophylaxis), whereas the use of fresh gloves for handling each implant and/or a permanent shielding technique (intraoperative implant prophylaxis) could potentially avoid recontamination at the theatre.

Indexed as

asepsisbacterial does on implantsbest practicesbioburden of implantscross-contamination of implantsinfectionprophylaxisSSIsurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID30443488
PMCPMC6232723
OpenAlexW2799658511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.