ArticleSpine deformity2023
Efficacy and safety of intrawound antibiotics in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a nationwide database study.
Article in Spine deformity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the efficacy and safety of intrawound antibiotics in posterior fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
methodsThe NSQIP-Pediatric databases 2016-2018 were utilized. Patients 10 years of age or older with AIS who underwent posterior fusion were selected and divided into two cohorts based on the receipt of intrawound antibiotics. Patient characteristics and complications were compared. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine the efficacy and safety of intrawound antibiotics.
resultsA total of 4203 patients received intrawound antibiotics while 879 patients did not. The intrawound antibiotic group had longer constructs, higher blood loss, and longer operative times, factors historically associated with higher infection rates. Those that received intrawound antibiotics had SSI rate of 0.69%, while its counterpart had 0.57% (p = 0.689). The reoperation rates were 1.12% and 1.25% (p = 0.735), for those with and without intrawound antibiotics, respectively. In multivariate analyses, intrawound antibiotics use was not found to be a significant predictor for SSI, any complications, reoperation and readmission.
conclusionThe current study represents the largest AIS surgery cohort studied to evaluate the efficacy of intrawound antibiotics. Our analysis failed to demonstrate association between the use of intrawound antibiotics and reduction in SSI. While other studies have reported seroma, wound dehiscence and renal failure with the practice, we did not observe an increased rate of such complications. This study highlights the difficulty of understanding the role for individual infection prevention measures in current surgical settings, where the SSI rate for the control group was substantially lower than 1%.
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.