Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Outcomes of infection following pediatric spinal fusion
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Outcomes of infection following pediatric spinal fusion
Do you wish to request the book?
Outcomes of infection following pediatric spinal fusion
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Outcomes of infection following pediatric spinal fusion
2015
Overview
Background Removal of instrumentation is often recommended as part of treatment for spinal infections, but studies have reported eradication of infection even with instrumentation retention by using serial débridements and adjuvant antibiotic pharmacotherapy. We sought to determine the effect of instrumentation retention or removal on outcomes in children with spinal infections. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the cases of patients who experienced early (< 3 mo) or late (≥ 3 mo) infected spinal fusions. Patients were evaluated at least 2 years after eradication of the infection using the following protocol outcomes: follow-up Cobb angle, curve progression and nonunion rates. Results Our sample included 35 patients. The mean age at surgery was 15.1 ± years, 65.7% were girls, and mean follow-up was 41.7 ± months. The mean Cobb angle was 63.6° ± 14.5° preoperatively, 29.4° ± 16.5° immediately after surgery and 37.2° ± 19.6° at follow-up. Patients in the implant removal group ( n = 21) were more likely than those in the implant retention group ( n = 14) to have a lower ASA score (71.4% v. 28.6%, p = 0.03), fewer comorbidities (66.7% v. 21.4%, p = 0.03), late infections (81.0% v. 14.3%, p = 0.01) and deep infections (95.2% v. 64.3%, p = 0.03). Implants were retained in 12 of 16 (75.0%) patients with early infections and 2 of 19 (10.5%) with late infections. Patients with implant removal had a higher pseudarthrosis rate (38.1% v. 0%, p = 0.02) and a faster curve progression rate (5.8 ± 9.8° per year v. 0.2 ± 4.7° per year, p = 0.04). Conclusion Implant retention should be considered, irrespective of the timing or depth of the infection.
Publisher
Joule Inc,CMA Impact, Inc
