Comparison of Closed Irrigation and Drainage vs Repeated Wound Dressing Changes for Iliac Crest Bone Donor Site Infection in Spine Surgery.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-04-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S511091
Xiaodan Li, Qiang Xiao, Ji-Huan Zeng
{"title":"Comparison of Closed Irrigation and Drainage vs Repeated Wound Dressing Changes for Iliac Crest Bone Donor Site Infection in Spine Surgery.","authors":"Xiaodan Li, Qiang Xiao, Ji-Huan Zeng","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S511091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Bone donor site infection (BDSI) is a main complication of bone harvest in spine surgery. Traditionally, repeated wound dressing changes (RWDC) after debridement are commonly used to treat BDSI but are associated with significant pain and largely prolonged hospitalization. This study retrospectively compared the effectiveness of closed irrigation and drainage (CIAD) with RWDC in treating BDSI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 21 cases of BDSI secondary to different spinal procedures in a period of 15 years were included. Twelve cases were treated by RWDC in the earlier study period, and the other 9 cases were treated by CIAD in the later period. Detailed information about pre- and intra-operative characters, laboratory results, pathogens results, duration of antibiotics use, visual analog scale (VAS) score of donor site pain, total hospital stay, cost after primary operation, and final outcomes of the BDSI were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was found among the included baseline characters. All patients obtained wound healing and no reinfection was found during a minimum of one year's follow-up. However, compared to RWDC, CIAD was associated with reduced hospital stay (16.5 ± 3.8 days versus 23.7 ± 4.9 days, P < 0.05), shorter duration of antibiotic use (5.3 ± 1.7 weeks versus 6.7 ± 2.0 weeks) and lower medical cost after primary operation (5040 ± 678 yuan versus 7280 ± 701 yuan, P < 0.05). While the VAS scores of donor site pain on the day a BDSI was diagnosed did not differ in the two groups, they were significantly lower on day 3, day 7, and even on the discharge day in the CIAD group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CIAD displays significant superiority to RWDC for the treatment of BDSI in terms of hospital stay, antibiotic duration, cost, and pain relief.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"1935-1943"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11994072/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S511091","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Bone donor site infection (BDSI) is a main complication of bone harvest in spine surgery. Traditionally, repeated wound dressing changes (RWDC) after debridement are commonly used to treat BDSI but are associated with significant pain and largely prolonged hospitalization. This study retrospectively compared the effectiveness of closed irrigation and drainage (CIAD) with RWDC in treating BDSI.

Methods: A total of 21 cases of BDSI secondary to different spinal procedures in a period of 15 years were included. Twelve cases were treated by RWDC in the earlier study period, and the other 9 cases were treated by CIAD in the later period. Detailed information about pre- and intra-operative characters, laboratory results, pathogens results, duration of antibiotics use, visual analog scale (VAS) score of donor site pain, total hospital stay, cost after primary operation, and final outcomes of the BDSI were collected.

Results: No significant difference was found among the included baseline characters. All patients obtained wound healing and no reinfection was found during a minimum of one year's follow-up. However, compared to RWDC, CIAD was associated with reduced hospital stay (16.5 ± 3.8 days versus 23.7 ± 4.9 days, P < 0.05), shorter duration of antibiotic use (5.3 ± 1.7 weeks versus 6.7 ± 2.0 weeks) and lower medical cost after primary operation (5040 ± 678 yuan versus 7280 ± 701 yuan, P < 0.05). While the VAS scores of donor site pain on the day a BDSI was diagnosed did not differ in the two groups, they were significantly lower on day 3, day 7, and even on the discharge day in the CIAD group.

Conclusion: CIAD displays significant superiority to RWDC for the treatment of BDSI in terms of hospital stay, antibiotic duration, cost, and pain relief.

脊柱外科髂嵴供骨区感染闭式冲洗引流与反复创面换药的比较。
目的:供骨部位感染(BDSI)是脊柱外科取骨的主要并发症。传统上,清创后反复伤口敷料改变(RWDC)通常用于治疗BDSI,但与明显的疼痛和住院时间延长有关。本研究回顾性比较了闭式灌排(CIAD)和RWDC治疗BDSI的有效性。方法:对15年来21例不同脊柱手术后继发的BDSI进行回顾性分析。前期采用RWDC治疗12例,后期采用CIAD治疗9例。收集术前和术中特征、实验室结果、病原体结果、抗生素使用时间、供区疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)评分、总住院时间、一次手术后费用和BDSI最终结果的详细信息。结果:所纳入的基线特征间无显著差异。在至少一年的随访期间,所有患者均获得伤口愈合,未发现再感染。然而,与RWDC相比,CIAD的住院时间缩短(16.5±3.8天比23.7±4.9天,P < 0.05),抗生素使用时间缩短(5.3±1.7周比6.7±2.0周),初次手术后医疗费用降低(5040±678元比7280±701元,P < 0.05)。虽然两组在诊断BDSI当天供体部位疼痛的VAS评分没有差异,但在CIAD组的第3天、第7天,甚至在出院当天,这些评分都显著降低。结论:CIAD治疗BDSI在住院时间、抗生素使用时间、费用和疼痛缓解方面均明显优于RWDC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信