Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32405555›Full record

ReviewSpine surgery and related research2020

Updates on Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Preoperative and Intraoperative Contamination of Implants in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Aakash Agarwal, Boren Lin, Hossein Elgafy, Vijay Goel, Chris Karas, Christian Schultz, Neel Anand, Steve Garfin, Jeffrey Wang, Anand Agarwal

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Spine surgery and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A novel rodent model of chronic spinal implant-associated infection.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Future directions of postoperative spinal implant infections.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Aakash AgarwalDepartment of Biology, Bioengineering and Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
Boren LinDepartment of Biology, Bioengineering and Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
Hossein ElgafyDepartment of Biology, Bioengineering and Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
Vijay GoelDepartment of Biology, Bioengineering and Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
Chris KarasBone and Joint Center, OhioHealth Grant Medical, Columbus, USA.
Christian SchultzDepartment of Biology, Bioengineering and Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
Neel AnandSpine Center, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.
Steve GarfinDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Jeffrey WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Anand AgarwalDepartment of Biology, Bioengineering and Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
University of Toledo · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USOhioHealth · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current communication seeks to provide an updated narrative review on latest methods of reducing implant contaminations used during spine surgery. Recent literature review has shown that both preoperative reprocessing and intraoperative handling of implants seem to contaminate implants. In brief, during preoperative phase, the implants undergo repeated bulk cleaning with dirty instruments from the OR, leading to residue buildup at the interfaces and possibly on the surfaces too. This, due to its concealed nature, remains unnoticed by the SPD (sterile processing department) or other hospital staff. Nevertheless, these can be avoided by using individually prepackaged presterilized implants. In the intraoperative phase, the implants (in the sterile field) are directly touched by the scrub tech with soiled (assisting the surgeon dispose the tissues from the instruments in use) gloves for loading onto an insertion device. It is then kept exposed on the working table (either separately or next to the used instruments as the pedicles hole are being prepared). Latest investigation has shown that by the time it is implanted in the patient, it can harbor up to 10e7 bacterial colony-forming units. The same implants were devoid of such colony-forming units, when sheathed by an impermeable sterile sheath around the sterile implant.

Indexed as

asepsisbioburdenbiofilmcontaminationimplant prophylaxisintraoperative handlingoccult infectionorthopedic implantspedicle screwsreprocessingSurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID32405555
PMCPMC7217678
OpenAlexW2949344895

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.