Late-onset deep surgical-site infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a patient treated with tocilizumab; unusual changes in inflammatory markers

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (S2) ◽  
pp. 296-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
Hideki Tsuboi ◽  
Hiroyasu Fujiwara ◽  
Kazuo Yonenobu
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Su Lee ◽  
Dong Ki Ahn ◽  
Byung Kwon Chang ◽  
Jae Il Lee

BMC Surgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Yin ◽  
Bin Liu ◽  
Yunbing Chang ◽  
Honglin Gu ◽  
Xiaoqing Zheng

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 771-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. McGirt ◽  
Scott L. Parker ◽  
Jason Lerner ◽  
Luella Engelhart ◽  
Tyler Knight ◽  
...  

Object Surgical site infection (SSI) after lumbar fusion results in significant patient morbidity and associated medical resource utilization. Minimally invasive (MI) techniques for posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (P/TLIF) were introduced with the goals of smaller wounds, less tissue trauma, reduced blood loss, and quicker postoperative recovery, while maintaining comparable surgical results. Studies with sufficient power to directly compare the incidence of SSI following MI versus open P/TLIF procedures have been lacking. Furthermore, the direct medical cost associated with the treatment of SSI following the P/TLIF procedure is poorly understood and has not been adequately assessed. Thus, the aim in the present study was to determine the incidence of perioperative SSI in patients undergoing MI versus open P/TLIF and the direct hospital cost associated with the diagnosis and management of SSI after P/TLIF as reported in a large administrative database. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed hospital discharge and billing records from the Premier Perspective Database for 2003 to 2009 to identify patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MI or open P/TLIF for lumbar spondylotic disease, disc degeneration, or spondylolisthesis. The ICD-9-CM procedure codes were used to identify patients undergoing P/TLIF and those experiencing SSI. Infection-related costs were obtained from the total costs incurred by the hospital for SSI-related care provided during inpatient or hospital outpatient encounters. Results Five thousand one hundred seventy patients undergoing P/TLIF were identified. Demographic profiles, including the Charlson Comorbidity Index, were similar between MI and open cohorts. Overall, 292 patients (5.6%) experienced an SSI with a mean direct cost of $15,817 per SSI. For 1-level MI versus open P/TLIF, the incidence of SSI (38 [4.5%] vs 77 [4.8%], p = 0.77) and the mean SSI-associated cost per P/TLIF ($684 vs $724, p = 0.680) were similar. For 2-level MI versus open P/TLIF, the incidence of SSI (27 [4.6%] vs 150 [7.0%], p = 0.037) and mean SSI-associated cost per P/TLIF ($756 vs $1140, p = 0.030) were both significantly lower among MI-treated patients. In a multivariate model that accounted for differences in demographics and patient severity, open fusion was associated with a strong trend of increased incidence of SSI as compared with MI fusion (OR 1.469, 95% CI 0.959–2.250). Conclusions In this multihospital study, the MI technique was associated with a decreased incidence of perioperative SSI and a direct cost savings of $38,400 per 100 P/TLIF procedure when used in 2-level fusion. There was no significant difference in the incidence of SSIs between the open and MI cohorts for 1-level fusion procedures. The results of this study provide further evidence of the reduced patient morbidity and health care costs associated with MI P/TLIF.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuhei Murase ◽  
Yasushi Oshima ◽  
Yujiro Takeshita ◽  
Kota Miyoshi ◽  
Kazuhito Soma ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEInterbody fusion cages are widely used to achieve initial fixation and secure spinal fusion; however, there are certain technique-related complications. Although anterior cage dislodgement can cause major vascular injury, the incidence is extremely rare. Here, the authors performed a review of anterior cage dislodgement following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed the cases of 4625 patients who had undergone PLIF at 6 institutions between December 2007 and March 2015. They investigated the incidence and causes of surgery-related anterior cage dislodgement, salvage mechanisms, and postoperative courses.RESULTSAnterior cage dislodgement occurred in 12 cases (0.26%), all of which were caused by technical errors. In 9 cases, excessive cage impaction resulted in dislodgement. In 2 cases, when the cage on the ipsilateral side was inserted, it interacted and pushed out the other cage on the opposite side. In 1 case, the cage was positioned in an extreme lateral and anterior part of the intervertebral disc space, and it postoperatively dislodged. In 3 cases, the cage was removed in the same operative field. In the remaining 9 cases, CT angiography was performed postoperatively to assess the relationship between the dislodged cage and large vessels. Dislodged cages were conservatively observed in 2 cases. In 7 cases, the cage was removed because it was touching or compressing large vessels, and an additional anterior approach was selected. In 2 patients, there was significant bleeding from an injured inferior vena cava. There were no further complications or sequelae associated with the dislodged cages during the follow-up period.CONCLUSIONSAlthough rare, iatrogenic anterior cage dislodgement following a PLIF can occur. The authors found that technical errors made by experienced spine surgeons were the main causes of this complication. To prevent dislodgement, the surgeon should be cautious when inserting the cage, avoiding excessive cage impaction and ensuring cage control. Once dislodgement occurs, the surgeons must immediately address this difficult complication. First, the possibility of a large vessel injury should be considered. If the patient’s vital signs are stable, the surgeon should continue with the surgery without cage removal and perform CT angiography postoperatively to assess the cage location. Blind maneuvers should be avoided when the surgical site cannot be clearly viewed. When the cage compresses or touches the aortic artery or vena cava, it is better to remove the cage to avoid late-onset injury to major vessels. When the cage does not compress or touch vessels, its removal is controversial. The risk factors associated with performing another surgery should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Isamu Miura ◽  
Motoo Kubota ◽  
Oji Momosaki ◽  
Kento Takebayashi ◽  
Takakazu Kawamata ◽  
...  

Spinal subdural abscesses are rare lesions. We report the case of surgical site infection complicated with meningitis and rapidly progressive spinal subdural abscess caused by P. aeruginosa following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A 72-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital complaining of drop foot syndrome and sciatica caused by stenosis of the L5/6 intervertebral foramen accompanied by L5 lumbar vertebral fracture. Accordingly, TLIF of L5-L6 and balloon kyphoplasty of L5 were performed. On the 3rd postoperative day (POD), she was diagnosed with surgical site infection complicated with bacterial meningitis. Subcutaneous fluid, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid cultures indicated P. aeruginosa. On the 7th POD, a repeat MRI showed a large dorsal fluid collection consistent with a subdural infection and massive cauda equina compression. We performed debridement and instrument removal and found a dural laceration that was not observed during the first operation. An intraoperative insensible dural laceration may cause bacteria intrusion into the subdural space.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document