在腰椎后路手术中,与使用可吸收缝线进行皮下缝合相比,使用外科皮肤钉闭合皮肤可能增加深部手术部位感染的风险:一项单一外科医生的经验。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Saechin Kim, John G Massoud, Philip Hanna, Serafina F Zotter, Amanda Schillinger, Valerie Kiers, Christopher M Bono
{"title":"在腰椎后路手术中,与使用可吸收缝线进行皮下缝合相比,使用外科皮肤钉闭合皮肤可能增加深部手术部位感染的风险:一项单一外科医生的经验。","authors":"Saechin Kim, John G Massoud, Philip Hanna, Serafina F Zotter, Amanda Schillinger, Valerie Kiers, Christopher M Bono","doi":"10.1177/10962964251372841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Most systemic analyses of optimum wound closure have not found significant differences in the surgical site infection (SSI) rates between the different methods of skin closure. A recent international survey reported that spine surgeons used continuous sutures, interrupted sutures, and surgical skin staples (SS) frequently for skin closure. We found that SS and running subcuticular stitch using absorbable suture (RSAS) were the two most common methods of skin closure in our spine division, and one surgeon had routinely used SS for skin closure until early 2020, at which time the surgeon switched to RSAS. Our hypothesis was that the infection rate would not be different whether the skin is closed with SS or RSAS. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> After IRB approval, a retrospective review of billing and hospital records at a tertiary referral academic medical center was used to identify all open posterior lumbar spine surgeries (OPLS) by a single surgeon in 2018-22 and obtain demographics, clinical history, and surgical characteristics. The inclusion criterion was OPLS closed with the RSAS or SS. Exclusion criteria were oncologic condition and previous infection in the surgical site. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were no significant differences between RSAS and SS groups in the risk factors such as age, BMI, history of diabetes or smoking, number of levels decompressed per case, number of levels fused per instrumented case, and operative time. The incidence of previous surgical procedure in the same site and the percentage of cases with instrumented fusion were both greater in the RSAS group, which should have resulted in greater risk for SSI in the RSAS group. However, the deep SSI rate in the RSAS group (1.4% = 3/216) was less than that in the SS group (5.9% = 6/101), and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> SS skin closure may have a greater risk for deep SSI compared with RSAS skin closure in OPLS.</p>","PeriodicalId":22109,"journal":{"name":"Surgical infections","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skin Closure Using Surgical Skin Staples May Have Increased Risk for Deep Surgical Site Infection Compared to Running Subcuticular Stitch Using Absorbable Suture in Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Single-Surgeon Experience.\",\"authors\":\"Saechin Kim, John G Massoud, Philip Hanna, Serafina F Zotter, Amanda Schillinger, Valerie Kiers, Christopher M Bono\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10962964251372841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Most systemic analyses of optimum wound closure have not found significant differences in the surgical site infection (SSI) rates between the different methods of skin closure. A recent international survey reported that spine surgeons used continuous sutures, interrupted sutures, and surgical skin staples (SS) frequently for skin closure. We found that SS and running subcuticular stitch using absorbable suture (RSAS) were the two most common methods of skin closure in our spine division, and one surgeon had routinely used SS for skin closure until early 2020, at which time the surgeon switched to RSAS. Our hypothesis was that the infection rate would not be different whether the skin is closed with SS or RSAS. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> After IRB approval, a retrospective review of billing and hospital records at a tertiary referral academic medical center was used to identify all open posterior lumbar spine surgeries (OPLS) by a single surgeon in 2018-22 and obtain demographics, clinical history, and surgical characteristics. The inclusion criterion was OPLS closed with the RSAS or SS. Exclusion criteria were oncologic condition and previous infection in the surgical site. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were no significant differences between RSAS and SS groups in the risk factors such as age, BMI, history of diabetes or smoking, number of levels decompressed per case, number of levels fused per instrumented case, and operative time. The incidence of previous surgical procedure in the same site and the percentage of cases with instrumented fusion were both greater in the RSAS group, which should have resulted in greater risk for SSI in the RSAS group. However, the deep SSI rate in the RSAS group (1.4% = 3/216) was less than that in the SS group (5.9% = 6/101), and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> SS skin closure may have a greater risk for deep SSI compared with RSAS skin closure in OPLS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical infections\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical infections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10962964251372841\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical infections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10962964251372841","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数关于最佳伤口闭合的系统分析并没有发现不同皮肤闭合方法在手术部位感染(SSI)率上的显着差异。最近的一项国际调查报告称,脊柱外科医生经常使用连续缝合、中断缝合和外科皮肤钉(SS)进行皮肤缝合。我们发现SS和使用可吸收缝线(RSAS)的皮下穿刺术是我们脊柱分割中最常见的两种皮肤缝合方法,直到2020年初,一位外科医生一直常规使用SS进行皮肤缝合,当时外科医生改用RSAS。我们的假设是,无论皮肤是否被SS或RSAS封闭,感染率都不会不同。方法:经IRB批准后,对一家三级转诊学术医疗中心的账单和医院记录进行回顾性审查,以确定2018-22年由一名外科医生进行的所有开放式后腰椎手术(OPLS),并获得人口统计学、临床病史和手术特征。纳入标准为ops与RSAS或SS闭合。排除标准为肿瘤状况和手术部位既往感染。结果:RSAS组与SS组在年龄、BMI、糖尿病或吸烟史、每例减压节段数、每例融合节段数、手术时间等危险因素上无显著差异。在RSAS组中,同一部位既往手术的发生率和内固定融合病例的百分比都更高,这应该导致RSAS组发生SSI的风险更高。但RSAS组深度SSI发生率(1.4% = 3/216)低于SS组(5.9% = 6/101),差异有统计学意义(p = 0.02)。结论:在ops中,SS皮肤闭合比RSAS皮肤闭合有更大的发生深度SSI的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Skin Closure Using Surgical Skin Staples May Have Increased Risk for Deep Surgical Site Infection Compared to Running Subcuticular Stitch Using Absorbable Suture in Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Single-Surgeon Experience.

Background: Most systemic analyses of optimum wound closure have not found significant differences in the surgical site infection (SSI) rates between the different methods of skin closure. A recent international survey reported that spine surgeons used continuous sutures, interrupted sutures, and surgical skin staples (SS) frequently for skin closure. We found that SS and running subcuticular stitch using absorbable suture (RSAS) were the two most common methods of skin closure in our spine division, and one surgeon had routinely used SS for skin closure until early 2020, at which time the surgeon switched to RSAS. Our hypothesis was that the infection rate would not be different whether the skin is closed with SS or RSAS. Methods: After IRB approval, a retrospective review of billing and hospital records at a tertiary referral academic medical center was used to identify all open posterior lumbar spine surgeries (OPLS) by a single surgeon in 2018-22 and obtain demographics, clinical history, and surgical characteristics. The inclusion criterion was OPLS closed with the RSAS or SS. Exclusion criteria were oncologic condition and previous infection in the surgical site. Results: There were no significant differences between RSAS and SS groups in the risk factors such as age, BMI, history of diabetes or smoking, number of levels decompressed per case, number of levels fused per instrumented case, and operative time. The incidence of previous surgical procedure in the same site and the percentage of cases with instrumented fusion were both greater in the RSAS group, which should have resulted in greater risk for SSI in the RSAS group. However, the deep SSI rate in the RSAS group (1.4% = 3/216) was less than that in the SS group (5.9% = 6/101), and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02). Conclusions: SS skin closure may have a greater risk for deep SSI compared with RSAS skin closure in OPLS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical infections
Surgical infections INFECTIOUS DISEASES-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Infections provides comprehensive and authoritative information on the biology, prevention, and management of post-operative infections. Original articles cover the latest advancements, new therapeutic management strategies, and translational research that is being applied to improve clinical outcomes and successfully treat post-operative infections. Surgical Infections coverage includes: -Peritonitis and intra-abdominal infections- Surgical site infections- Pneumonia and other nosocomial infections- Cellular and humoral immunity- Biology of the host response- Organ dysfunction syndromes- Antibiotic use- Resistant and opportunistic pathogens- Epidemiology and prevention- The operating room environment- Diagnostic studies
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信