ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Post-spinal surgery infections: a two-year follow-up study on risks, resistance, and recovery.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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.
- Long-term patient-reported outcomes and mechanical complications following spinal fusion in patients with surgical site infection managed with retained instrumentation versus non-infected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Novel Therapeutic Approaches and Alternatives to Antibiotic Therapy for Drug-Resistant Intra-Abdominal Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Degradation-tunable coating with sustained silver release for spinal implants to prevent postoperative infections.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infections following spinal surgery (SSI-SS) are a major concern, leading to increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and higher healthcare costs. This study aimed to analyze the epidemiology, microbiological characteristics, and treatment outcomes of SSI-SS at La Timone Hospital, Marseille, from 2016 to 2022.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with microbiologically confirmed SSI-SS. Demographic data, bacterial pathogens, antimicrobial resistance profiles, and treatment outcomes were analyzed over a two-year follow-up period.
resultsAmong 6,975 spinal surgery patients, 227 (3.3%) developed SSI-SS. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (40%)—8% of which were methicillin-resistant (MRSA)—and Enterobacteriaceae (35%), with 23% being multidrug-resistant. Surgical revision was required in 98% of cases, with debridement and osteosynthesis retention as the preferred approach. Immunosuppressive condition (HR 2.58 [1.3, 4.8], p = 0.005) and tumor resection (HR 2.4 [1.3–4.5], p = 0.007) were independently associated with poor outcomes. The use of rifampicin (HR 0.3 [0.1–0.7], p = 0.008) or clindamycin (HR 0.2 [0–0.9], p = 0.009) in antimicrobial targeted therapy was significantly linked to improved recovery rates. Despite cefazolin prophylaxis, 3.3% of patients still developed infections, raising concerns about its effectiveness.
conclusionOur findings highlight the high burden of antibiotic-resistant infections in SSI-SS and suggest that rifampicin or clindamycin-based regimens may improve patient outcomes. The efficacy of standard prophylaxis with cefazolin warrants further investigation, and alternative preventive strategies should be considered.
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.