Local Prophylactic Teicoplanin Effect on Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Comparative Retrospective Study.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Nuh Mehmet Elmadağ, Deniz Kara, Anil Pulatkan, Vahdet Uçan, Dilek Hacer Cesme, Orkhan Aliyev, Hüseyin Doğu, Nail Demirel, Anas Abdallah
{"title":"Local Prophylactic Teicoplanin Effect on Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Comparative Retrospective Study.","authors":"Nuh Mehmet Elmadağ, Deniz Kara, Anil Pulatkan, Vahdet Uçan, Dilek Hacer Cesme, Orkhan Aliyev, Hüseyin Doğu, Nail Demirel, Anas Abdallah","doi":"10.1055/a-2103-7519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most severe complications of spinal fusion surgery that lead to increased morbidity and mortality rates. Prophylactic antibiotic usage is one of the methods that reduce the possibility of SSI in this procedure. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of local subfascial teicoplanin usage on radiologic and functional outcomes and compare it to the effect of vancomycin on surgical outcomes in patients who underwent decompression with posterior instrumentation (DPI) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Medical charts of patients with LSS who received DPI and met the study criteria were divided into three groups: the teicoplanin group included patients who underwent DPI with local teicoplanin before closure, the vancomycin group included patients who underwent DPI with local vancomycin, and the control group included patients who underwent DPI without any local prophylactic antibiotics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 101 patients were included in the study. No significant differences were found among groups regarding demographics, follow-up, and clinical and functional outcomes. No significant differences were observed among groups regarding postoperative improvements in SF-36-MCS, SF-36-PCS, Oswestry Disability Index, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS; <i>p</i> > 0.05). In the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, the SSI rate was lower than that in the control group (2/35, 1/34, and 5/32, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.136) without statistical significance; however, the postoperative fusion volume was significantly higher in the teicoplanin group when compared to the other groups (3.35 ± 1.08, 2.68 ± 1.17, and 2.65 ± 1.28 cm<sup>3</sup>, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong> Although its cost is relatively higher, teicoplanin was a good alternative to vancomycin in preventing SSIs with a higher fusion rate, but no superiority was observed regarding other outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"539-548"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2103-7519","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most severe complications of spinal fusion surgery that lead to increased morbidity and mortality rates. Prophylactic antibiotic usage is one of the methods that reduce the possibility of SSI in this procedure. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of local subfascial teicoplanin usage on radiologic and functional outcomes and compare it to the effect of vancomycin on surgical outcomes in patients who underwent decompression with posterior instrumentation (DPI) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods:  Medical charts of patients with LSS who received DPI and met the study criteria were divided into three groups: the teicoplanin group included patients who underwent DPI with local teicoplanin before closure, the vancomycin group included patients who underwent DPI with local vancomycin, and the control group included patients who underwent DPI without any local prophylactic antibiotics.

Results:  A total of 101 patients were included in the study. No significant differences were found among groups regarding demographics, follow-up, and clinical and functional outcomes. No significant differences were observed among groups regarding postoperative improvements in SF-36-MCS, SF-36-PCS, Oswestry Disability Index, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS; p > 0.05). In the teicoplanin and vancomycin groups, the SSI rate was lower than that in the control group (2/35, 1/34, and 5/32, respectively, p = 0.136) without statistical significance; however, the postoperative fusion volume was significantly higher in the teicoplanin group when compared to the other groups (3.35 ± 1.08, 2.68 ± 1.17, and 2.65 ± 1.28 cm3, respectively, p = 0.007).

Conclusions:  Although its cost is relatively higher, teicoplanin was a good alternative to vancomycin in preventing SSIs with a higher fusion rate, but no superiority was observed regarding other outcomes.

局部预防性替考拉宁对脊柱融合手术的影响:回顾性对比研究
背景:手术部位感染(SSI)是脊柱融合手术最严重的并发症之一,会导致发病率和死亡率上升。预防性使用抗生素是降低该手术 SSI 可能性的方法之一。本研究旨在确定局部筋膜下使用替考拉宁对放射学和功能结果的影响,并将其与万古霉素对腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)后路器械减压术(DPI)患者手术结果的影响进行比较:将接受DPI且符合研究标准的LSS患者病历分为三组:替考拉宁组包括在闭合前使用局部替考拉宁进行DPI的患者,万古霉素组包括使用局部万古霉素进行DPI的患者,对照组包括未使用任何局部预防性抗生素进行DPI的患者:研究共纳入了 101 名患者。各组在人口统计学、随访、临床和功能结果方面无明显差异。在术后 SF-36-MCS、SF-36-PCS、Oswestry 失能指数和视觉模拟量表(VAS)的改善方面,各组间无明显差异;P > 0.05。Teicoplanin 组和万古霉素组的 SSI 感染率低于对照组(分别为 2/35、1/34 和 5/32,p = 0.136),无统计学意义;但 Teicoplanin 组的术后融合体积明显高于其他组(分别为 3.35 ± 1.08、2.68 ± 1.17 和 2.65 ± 1.28 cm3,p = 0.007):结论:虽然替考拉宁的成本相对较高,但在预防 SSI 方面,它是万古霉素的良好替代品,且融合率更高,但在其他结果方面没有观察到优越性。
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery (JNLS A) is a major publication from the world''s leading publisher in neurosurgery. JNLS A currently serves as the official organ of several national neurosurgery societies. JNLS A is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles, and technical notes covering all aspects of neurological surgery. The focus of JNLS A includes microsurgery as well as the latest minimally invasive techniques, such as stereotactic-guided surgery, endoscopy, and endovascular procedures. JNLS A covers purely neurosurgical topics.
×
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