Abstract
Background
Identifying beneficial preventive strategies for surgical-site infection (SSI) in individual patients with different clinical and surgical characteristics is challenging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between preventive strategies and patient risk of SSI taking into consideration baseline risks and estimating the reduction of SSI probability in individual patients attributed to these strategies.
Methods
Pediatric patients who underwent primary, revision, or final fusion for their spinal deformity at 7 institutions between 2004 and 2018 were included. Preventive strategies included the use of topical vancomycin, bone graft, povidone-iodine (PI) irrigations, multilayered closure, impermeable dressing, enrollment in quality improvement (QI) programs, and adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis. The CDC definition of SSI as occurring within 90 days postoperatively was used. Multiple regression modeling was performed following multiple imputation and multicollinearity testing to investigate the effect of preventive strategies on SSI in individual patients adjusted for patient and surgical characteristics.
Results
Univariable regressions demonstrated that enrollment in QI programs and PI irrigation were significantly associated, and topical vancomycin, multilayered closure, and correct intraoperative dosing of antibiotics trended toward association with reduction of SSI. In the final prediction model using multiple regression, enrollment in QI programs remained significant and PI irrigation had an effect in decreasing risks of SSI by average of 49% and 18%, respectively, at the individual patient level.
Conclusion
Considering baseline patient characteristics and predetermined surgical and hospital factors, enrollment in QI programs and PI irrigation reduce the risk of SSI in individual patients. Multidisciplinary efforts should be made to implement these practices to increase patient safety.
Level of evidence
Prognostic level III study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Several guidelines for the prevention of surgical-site infection (SSI) have been developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [1, 2] and other agencies [3,4,5] in the United States. In the field of pediatric spinal deformity care, best practice guidelines for the prevention of SSI were developed based on expert consensus [6, 7]. There are ongoing efforts to build evidence in the field, and a review of recent literature reported that the use of antibiotic prophylaxis regimens, such as gentamicin-impregnated allograft bone and intra-wound vancomycin powder, could be effective in decreasing risk of SSI [8, 9]. However, the complex multi-factorial nature of SSI imposes challenges to identifying which individual patients will best benefit from implementation of specific preventive care factors. Precision prevention [10,11,12] ensuring that patients, especially those at highest risk, receive appropriate and targeted preventive care is important, particularly in the value-based model of healthcare which balances increasing quality of care and improving population health with decreasing per capita costs [13].
An SSI risk calculator was developed and tested to compute the probability of SSI in individual pediatric patients undergoing spine surgery [14]. The model used patient, surgical and hospital factors which are determined preoperatively are unlikely to be modified [14]. This calculator makes it possible to identify high-risk patients, enhances patient education and shared decision-making, target resources for preoperative optimization, and alerts the perioperative care team in advance. An essential next step is to identify modifiable preventive care measures to reduce the individual patient’s probability of SSI. Purposes of this study were to investigate the association between preventive care measures and patient risk of SSI, and to estimate the reduction of SSI probability by these preventive care measures from the baseline probability in individual patients, as calculated by previously identified risk factors [14]. We hypothesized that some preventive care factors would be associated with reduced incidences of SSI within 90 days after spinal surgery in individual patients.
Materials and methods
A multi-center retrospective study was conducted using data from seven institutions in urban hospitals with a broad range in number of surgical procedures (mean = 515, range = 8–1490). Upon IRB approval at each site, pediatric patients (≤ 21 years of age) with spinal deformity who underwent primary, revision, and definitive spinal fusion between 2004 and 2018 with standard perioperative care were included. Trained research personnel at each site reviewed patient charts, and a final audit was conducted by the first author to identify discrepancies or ambiguities in the data. Additional chart reviews were requested at each site for clarity to ensure the quality of the data. The unit of analysis was procedures instead of patients as some patients had more than one procedure and these procedures were different in terms of invasiveness.
Preventive care factors included the use of topical vancomycin in the operative site and/or bone graft, povidone-iodine irrigations, multilayered closure, or impermeable dressing, the enrollment quality improvement (QI) programs, such as the Children’s Hospitals’ Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS) program [15] (Appendix 1), and adherence to the institutional perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis guideline (Appendix 2). While, the standard closure technique involves conventional fascial, subcutaneous, and skin closure, multilayer closure incorporates the development of myocutaneous flaps and closure of the deep muscles, typically the paraspinous muscles, in a fashion [16]. The technique helps obliterate the peri-hardware dead space and relives tension. The impermeable dressings, such as medical skin adhesive gluing the edges of an incision closed, were waterproof and impermeable to bacteria and contaminants.
The SPS program was designed to prevent patient harms including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) by employing cultural transformation strategies focusing on in-depth evaluation and change in communication, team dynamics, and leadership. SPS was founded in 2012 and participating hospital enrollment took place from 2012 to 2014. Data regarding adherence to the institutional perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis guideline were collected but were available only from one participating institution. Adherence to the institutional perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis guideline was categorized into incorrect or correct for administration of preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative dosing or timing (Appendix 2). Patients with suspected infections before surgery who were continued on antibiotics > 24 h after surgery were not categorized as receiving incorrect perioperative prophylaxis.
Data collectors used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of SSI published in 2017 [17] describing SSI as occurring within 90 days after the procedure and involving the skin or subcutaneous tissue of the incision or the fascial and muscle layers below the subcutaneous layer of the incision. In each setting, the treating physicians and surgeons as well as perioperative care team and pediatric infectious disease consults were responsible for closely monitoring wound cultures and readmissions after spine surgery to diagnose and document the occurrence of SSI. If a patient had more than one procedure before an SSI occurrence, the SSI was attributed to the most recent procedure.
Power analysis
An a priori power analysis was conducted to compare the risk of SSI between patients who received each preventive care strategy and those who did not. Given the sample size (n = 3092) and a significance level of 5%, more than 90% power would be achieved to detect absolute difference of 2% in area under curves (AUC). To ensure adequate power to add a care factor in the previously developed risk calculator using prediction modeling, the event per variable (EPV) ratio, defined as the number of outcomes divided by the number of risk factors in the model, for more than 10 was sought [18, 19]. There were 3092 procedures and 132 SSI (4.5%) in the database. Therefore, the prediction model up to 13 predictors was adequate to be entered in the prediction modeling at a time. There were ten patient, surgical and hospital factors already determined; therefore, it was appropriate to include up to three preventive care factors in the final prediction model.
Statistical analysis
Missing data in preventive care factors (2.2–8.9%) were addressed using multiple imputation since there was no evidence that the missing data were not random [20,21,22] (Appendix 3). Simple logistic regression models were first utilized for each preventive care factor to examine its association with the SSI. Significant preventive care factors in the univariable analyses (p < 0.05) and patient, surgical, and hospital factors identified in the risk calculator as significant were included: overweight/obese, neuromuscular etiology, American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status Classification System (ASA) > 2, non-ambulatory status, abnormal hemoglobin level, revision surgery, presence of pelvic instrumentation, procedure time ≥ 7 h, and 100 spine surgical case per year per institution. The corresponding odds ratio (OR) of SSI in the multiple logistic regression model was obtained for each preventive care factor.
The data were randomly split into training (80%) and testing (20%) cohorts, and five-fold cross-validation was performed with model fit conducted only in the training sets [23]. The AUC plotting sensitivity vs 1-specificity were calculated to evaluate the model’s ability to discriminate patients with and without SSI [24]. Discrimination abilities were further assessed by discrimination slopes and box plots comparing average prediction differences in those with and without the observed SSI [25], and by Lorenz estimates and curves depicting the cumulative proportion of patients ranked by predicted probability against the cumulative proportion of patients with SSI [26]. The model calibration was assessed by the Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit test along with the graphic illustration of the fit using calibration plots [27]. Calibration slopes [28], and calibration-in-the-large [29] were also evaluated. Overfitting was calculated by in-sample error over out-sample error comparing the average deviances and Pearson’s residuals of training sets and testing sets. To calculate the individual probability of SSI, a risk prediction algorithm was created from coefficients in the final model. Additionally, a smart phone application for the dynamic calculator was developed to facilitate use in clinical settings.
Results
There were 3092 spinal deformity surgical procedures, and a total of 132 SSI within 90 days after surgery were reported (4.5%) (Table 1). Multilayered closure was performed in approximately half of patients followed by topical vancomycin in approximately 40% of patients, povidone-iodine irrigations and QI enrollment in about one-fourth of patients, and impermeable dressing in approximately 15% of patients (Table 2). For the institution with available data regarding adherence to their perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis guideline, there were 1487 surgical procedures and 57 SSI (3.8%) (Table 3). Reported adherence to postoperative dosing of antibiotic prophylaxis had the lowest reported adherence (78.3%) and postoperative timing had the highest (91.5%). Adherence to preoperative and intraoperative dosing and timing was similar, ranging from 87 to 89.5%. Univariable regressions demonstrated that enrollment in QI programs and povidone-iodine (PI) irrigation was significantly associated, and topical vancomycin, multilayered closure, and correct intraoperative dosing of antibiotics were trended toward association with reduction of SSI (Tables 2, 3). When the SPS enrollment alone was in the model, patients whose procedures were performed when sites were enrolled in the programs had 49.4% decrease in SSI (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, [95% CI 0.32; 0.81], p = 0.005) and AUC of 0.56 [95% CI 0.52; 0.59].
The final model using multiple regression including povidone-iodine irrigations and the enrollment in SPS as well as the previously identified patient, surgical, and hospital characteristics demonstrated adequate predictive discrimination and calibration abilities in the training and testing sets (Appendix 4). The average discrimination abilities of this model in the training and the testing sets were AUC: 0.78 [95% CI 0.74; 0.83] and 0.77 [95% CI 0.69; 0.85], the discrimination slope of 0.05 [95% CI 0.04; 0.06] and 0.05 [95% CI 0.03;0.06], and Lorenz curve: 2.81%, 12.87%, and 35.65% and 3.52%, 12.19%, and 39.37% at 25%, 50%, and 75% cumulative risk proportions respectively. The average calibration abilities were calibration slope: 1.03 and 0.97, expected/observed ratio: 0.99 and 0.99, calibration-in-the-large: 0.01 and 0.01, HL goodness-of-fit-tests of 0.002 and 0.16. Overfitting was not observed: deviance of 0.99 and Pearson’s residuals of 0.99. Coefficient and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for preventive care factors in the final prediction model are presented in Table 4. Patients from institutions enrolled in the SPS programs had an average 48.9% lower in SSI compared with patients from non-enrolled sites [odds ratio: 0.51, (95% CI 0.30; 0.86), p = 0.01]. Although not statistically significant, patients who received povidone-iodine irrigations had an average 18.3% decrease in SSI compared with patients without the irrigations [odds ratio: 0.81, (95% CI 0.44; 1.48), p = 0.494]. Accumulative AUCs are presented in Appendix 5.
The equation and the smartphone application to calculate the reduction of the predicted risk of SSI in individual patients from the final model are presented in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. Some likely cases are described in Table 5. For example, Case 2 shows the predicted risk of SSI in patients with neuromuscular etiology, ASA = 2, and non-ambulatory status, who underwent pelvic instrumentation and had ≥ 7-h surgical procedure. The predicted risk was reduced from 13.4% to 11.1% with povidone-iodine irrigations, to 7.3% with SPS enrollment, and to 6.0% with both strategies.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to identify preventive care factors associated with a reduction in SSI incidence within 90 days of pediatric spinal deformity surgery. The previously developed risk calculator used prediction modeling to identify the probability of SSI in individual patients based on preoperative factors and intraoperative factors, which are determined and planned preoperatively and unlikely to be modified in many cases. In this study, we attempted to identify modifiable preventive care factors in individual patients, taking the baseline risk of these patients into account as calculated by the previously developed clinical risk model [14].
This study demonstrated that enrollment in SPS was most significantly associated with a reduced risk of SSI. SPS, focusing on teamwork, communication, and leadership, was designed to prevent patient harms by facilitating organizational improvements and employing cultural transformation. This finding was consistent with existing literature reporting the benefit of QI programs in reducing SSI in various surgical specialties among both adult and pediatric populations [30,31,32,33]. This suggests that the socio-adaptive aspects of care were especially important in reducing the risk of SSI. Quality improvement requires orchestrated efforts including robust leadership and commitment of the entire care team along with an understanding of health care delivery and human behavior [34, 35]. Hence, reviewing and investing in socio-adaptive aspects of care delivery may be a crucial step along with seeking other technical approaches. Additionally, SPS is a multimodal QI program that may improve the administration and adherence to other preventative strategies examined, such as antibiotic timing.
On the technical side, this study showed that povidone-iodine irrigations might have been associated with a reduced risk of SSI. Although it was not statistically significant, on average, the calculated probability of SSI at the individual level produced by the equation was still reduced when povidone-iodine irrigations were performed. The impact of the povidone-iodine irrigations found in our study was not as great as in a previous study reporting an approximately 20 percent reduction [36]. This may be because our sample size was too small, or the previous study only included patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) while this study had patients with AIS as well as younger patients and patients with more involved etiologies and complex comorbidities.
This study is important in several ways. First, identifying potentially modifiable preventive care factors is valuable in the clinical setting. Although it is not possible to modify some risk factors, such as neuromuscular etiology, changing modifiable factors can reduce the incidence of SSI. Targeting preventive care strategies for children undergoing surgery for spinal deformities, and focusing on those identified to be at the highest risk for SSI, is important and may enable simultaneous improvements in the quality of care while minimizing per capita costs [13]. Second, results of this study can provide insights into potential causal mechanisms of SSI. Although risk prediction and investigation of causal inference differ in principle and methodology, prediction modeling identifies exposures significantly associated with outcomes. Therefore, preventive care factors identified in this research warrant further study to advance our understanding of potential strategies to reduce SSI. Third, this study defined SSI using the standard CDC definition which is also used by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to determine penalties for surgical readmission.
There were several limitations in this study. First, misdiagnosis or variations in defining SSI might have occurred across sites as SSI ranged from 0 to 5.3%. Although each site agreed to use the CDC definition of SSI and was asked to validate the SSI data in patient charts, the accuracy of the data was dependent on research personnel at each site. Despite providing each site with a standardized definition, variations in reporting may also have occurred for multilevel closure due to differences in surgical technique. Second, an SSI could have been treated at an outside hospital not contributing to the database and not reported to a performing surgeon. However, this was unlikely due to the seriousness of spinal surgery and SSI. Next, some preventive care factors may have been misclassified or not recorded. If recording errors of the outcome and/or exposures were different, information bias and inaccurate prediction are possible. An important next step in the research is to validate the reduction effect of preventive care factors tested in this study in multiple data sets across different times and settings. Finally, the SPS program is specific to the United States and may not be generalizable to other countries. SPS focuses on the socio-adaptive aspects of care management, facilitated organizational improvements and cultural transformation, but may not be appropriate in different cultures and customs. Therefore, future studies which investigate causal pathways (mediator effects) between quality programs and the decreased risk of SSI are needed to identify potential interventions to replace culturally specific programs that improve human behavior and reduce the risk of SSI in other countries. Additionally, future studies could investigate how the level of site involvement in QI programs interacts with SSI risk.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study presents the first-time evaluation of the potential effects of preventive care factors on SSI risk in individual patients, considering individual patients’ baseline characteristics and predetermined surgical and hospital factors, which are difficult to modify and can confound the results. The final model encompassing preventive care factors and patient, surgical and hospital factors has adequate predictive accuracy for 90-day SSI after surgery in pediatric patients with spinal deformity. SSI incidence was most significantly associated with quality improvement program enrollment, further supporting the use of multimodal, multidisciplinary teams to improve patient safety. The results of this study add new information to enhance personalized care in clinical practice by identifying factors, which could reduce the risk of SSI for specific patients.
Availability of data and material
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, HM, upon reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines Library | Infection Control | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/index.html. Accessed 20 July 2017
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 27(2):97–132. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10196487. Accessed Aug 25 2014 (quiz 133–134; discussion 96)
Spruce L (2014) Back to basics: preventing surgical site infections. AORN J 99(5):600–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2014.02.002
Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C et al (2017) American college of surgeons and surgical infection society: surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update. J Am Coll Surg 224(1):59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.10.029
Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al (2013) Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Heal Pharm 70(3):195–283. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp120568
Glotzbecker MP, St Hilaire TA, Pawelek JB et al (2017) Best practice guidelines for surgical site infection prevention with surgical treatment of early onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001079
Vitale MG, Riedel MD, Glotzbecker MP et al (2013) Building consensus: development of a best practice guideline (BPG) for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in high-risk pediatric spine surgery. J Pediatr Orthop 33(5):471–478. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182840de2
Borkhuu B, Borowski A, Shah SA, Littleton AG, Dabney KW, Miller F. (2008) Antibiotic-loaded allograft decreases the rate of acute deep wound infection after spinal fusion in cerebral palsy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(21):2300–4 OD-2008/10/02. internal-pdf:/Borkhuu et al_Antibiotic-loaded allograft decreases deep would infection after fusion in CP_Spine 2008.pdf
Haller JM, Heflin JA, Hulet DA, Ding Q, Presson AP, Smith JT (2017) Intrawound vancomycin powder associated with reduced surgical site infection in rib-based distraction surgery. J Pediatr Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001042
Rebbeck TR (2014) Precision prevention of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers 23(12):2713–2715. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1058
Khoury MJ, Iademarco MF, Riley WT (2016) Precision public health for the era of precision medicine. Am J Prev Med 50(3):398. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2015.08.031
Vineis P, Wild CP (2017) The science of precision prevention of cancer. Lancet Oncol 18(8):997–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30331-5
Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J (2008) The triple aim: care, health. And Cost Health Aff 27(3):759–769. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
Matsumoto H, Larson EL, Warren SI, Hammoor BT, Bonsignore-Opp L, Troy MJ, Barrett KK, Striano BM, Li G, Terry MB, Roye BD, Lenke LG, Skaggs DL, Glotzbecker MP, Flynn JM, Roye DP, Vitale MG (2022) A clinical risk model for surgical site infection following pediatric spine deformity surgery. J Bone Jt Surg 104:364–375
Lyren A, Brilli R, Bird M, Lashutka N, Muething S (2013) Ohio children’s hospitals’ solutions for patient safety: a framework for pediatric patient safety improvement. J Healthc Qual 38(4):213–222
Imahiyerobo T, Minkara AA, Matsumoto H, Vitale MG (2018) Plastic multilayered closure in pediatric nonidiopathic scoliosis is associated with a lower than expected incidence of wound complications and surgical site infections. Spine Deform 6(4):454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.12.009
National Healthcare Safety Network Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surgical site infection (SSI) event. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2022
Pavlou M, Ambler G, Seaman SR, et al (2015) How to develop a more accurate risk prediction model when there are few events. BMJ. 351:h3868. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26264962. Accessed June 6 2018
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR (1995) Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 48(12):1503–1510. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8543964. Accessed June 6 2018
Rubin DB, Schenker N (1991) Multiple imputation in health-are databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 10(4):585–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780100410
Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB et al (2009) Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 339(7713):157–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393
Rubin DB (1976) Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63:581–592
Steyerberg EW (2009) Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. Springler Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, USA
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143(1):29–36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747
Caputo RP, Goel A, Pencina M et al (2012) Impact of drug eluting stent length on outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (from the EVENT registry). Am J Cardiol 110(3):350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.03.031
Mauguen A, Begg CB (2016) Using the lorenz curve to characterize risk predictiveness and etiologic heterogeneity. Epidemiology 27(4):531–537. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000499
Austin PC, Steyerberg EW (2014) Graphical assessment of internal and external calibration of logistic regression models by using loess smoothers. Stat Med 33(3):517–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5941
Cox D (1958) Two further applications of a model for binary regression. Biometrika 45(3–4):562–565
Steyerberg E, Vickers A, Cook N. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for some traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology (Published online 2010). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575184/. Accessed July 13 2017
Schaffzin JK, Harte L, Marquette S et al (2015) Surgical site infection reduction by the solutions for patient safety hospital engagement network. Pediatrics 136(5):e1353–e1360. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0580
Toltzis P, O’Riordan M, Cunningham DJ et al (2014) A statewide collaborative to reduce pediatric surgical site infections. Pediatrics 134(4):e1174–e1180. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-0097
Wick EC, Hobson DB, Bennett JL et al (2012) Implementation of a surgical comprehensive unit-based safety program to reduce surgical site infections. J Am Coll Surg 215(2):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.03.017
Lenherr Ramos L, Weber R, Sax H, Giovanoli P, Kuster SP (2019) A comprehensive unit-based safety program for the reduction of surgical site infections in plastic surgery and hand surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 40(12):1367–1373. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2019.279
Berwick DM (1998) Developing and testing changes in delivery of care. Ann Intern Med 128(8):651–656. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-128-8-199804150-00009
Laffel G, Blumenthal D. (1989) The case for using industrial quality management science in health care organizations. - PubMed - NCBI. JAMA 262(20):2869–2873. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/?term=The+case+for+using+industrial+quality+management+science+in+health+care+organizations. Accessed Apr 28 2020
van Herwijnen B, Evans NR, Dare CJ et al (2016) An intraoperative irrigation regimen to reduce the surgical site infection rate following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 98(5):320–323. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0132
Funding
This work was conducted without the support of additional funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HM, LB-O, SIW, BTH, MJT, KKB, BMS, BDR, LL, DS, MPG, JF, DPR, MV: made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the creation of new software used in the work. HM, LB-O, SIW, BTH, MJT, KKB, BMS, BDR, LL, DS, MPG, JF, DPR, MV: drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. HM, LB-O, SIW, BTH, MJT, KKB, BMS, BDR, LL, DS, MPG, JF, DPR, MV: approved of the version to be published. HM, LB-O, SIW, BTH, MJT, KKB, BMS, BDR, LL, DS, MPG, JF, DPR, MV: agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. Lenke reports personal fees from Medtronic, non-financial support from Broadwater, grants and non-financial support from Scoliosis Research Society, grants from EOS, grants from Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation, other from Evans Family Donation, other from Fox Family Foundation, grants and non-financial support from AOSpine, personal fees from Abryx, personal fees from EOS Technologies, personal fees from Acuity Surgical. Dr. Vitale reports grants from POSNA, during the conduct of the study; grants from Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation, grants and other from Children’s Spine Foundation, grants from Orthopaedic Scientific Research Foundation, grants and other from POSNA, other from OMeGA, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Biomet, personal fees from NuVasive, and other from IPOS outside of the submitted work. Dr. Roye reports grants from POSNA, during the conduct of the study; grants from Orthopaedic Scientific Research Foundation, grants from POSNA, other from OMeGA, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no example conflicts of interest to disclose.
Ethics approval
This study was approved by the participating sites and by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board under protocol AAAD9701. It was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in this study upon enrollment into the registry.
Consent for publication
No patient identifying information is included in the article. Not applicable.
Copyright and patient information
No copyrighted materials or patient information is included in this manuscript submission.
Permission to reproduce copyrighted materials
No copyrighted materials are included in this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1 Preventive care factors
Type of preventive care factors | Measures |
---|---|
Topical vancomycin | Dichotomous (yes or no) |
Povidone-iodine irrigations | Dichotomous (yes or no) |
Multi-layer closure | Dichotomous (performed or not performed) |
Dressing | Dichotomous (permeable or impermeable) |
Children’s hospitals’ solutions for patient safety or comprehensive unit-based safety program enrollment | Dichotomous (yes or no) |
Preoperative dosing of any IV antibiotics | Dichotomous (correct or incorrect) |
Preoperative timing of any IV antibiotics | Dichotomous (correct or incorrect) |
Intraoperative dosing of any IV antibiotics | Dichotomous (correct or incorrect) |
Intraoperative timing of any IV antibiotics | Dichotomous (correct or incorrect) |
Postoperative dosing of any IV antibiotics | Dichotomous (correct or incorrect) |
Postoperative timing of any IV antibiotics | Dichotomous (correct or incorrect) |
Appendix 2 perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for spine surgery, pediatric orthopedic spine service
Drugs | Dosage | Timing | Intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines | Antibiotic prophylaxis re-dosing guidelines |
---|---|---|---|---|
IV Cefazolin (if no b-lactam antibiotic allergy and not colonized with MRSA) | 30 mg/kg ± 10% | 15 to 60 min prior to incision | Eligible for re-dosing if surgery duration ≥ 4 h after first antibiotic dose. Timing of intraoperative re-dosing: 4 h ± 30 min from previous dose OR | Discontinuation of antibiotics within 24 h of surgery end time. Postoperative re-dosing interval: every 8 h |
IV Vancomycin (if b-lactam antibiotic allergy or MRSA colonization) | 15 mg/kg ± 10% | 15 to 60 min prior to incision | Eligible for re-dosing if surgery duration ≥ 8 h after first antibiotic dose. Timing of intraoperative re-dosing: 8 h ± 30 min from previous dose AND | Discontinuation of antibiotics within 24 h of surgery end time. Postoperative re-dosing interval: every 8 h |
IV Tobramycin (If tobramycin antibiotic allergy, Gram-negative coverage selected on a case-by-case basis) | 2.5 mg/kg ± 10% | 15 to 60 min prior to incision | Eligible for re-dosing if surgery duration ≥ 8 h after first antibiotic dose. Timing of intraoperative re-dosing: 8 h ± 30 min from previous dose AND | Discontinuation of antibiotics within 24 h of surgery end time. Postoperative re-dosing interval: every 8 h |
Topical vancomycin | 1 g | After the spine muscle exposure | Powder rubbed into spinal muscles | |
Povidone-iodine | 3% | After instrumentation | Irrigations for 3 min | |
Topical vancomycin | 1 g | Before wound closure | Powder rubbed into spinal muscles |
Appendix 3 Number (%) of missing values per candidate predictor variables, and distribution of predictors among subjects without and with missing values (100%: N = 3092)
Candidate predictor variables | No missing N (%) | Missing N (%) | Before imputation | After imputation N = 3092 | Patterns of missing data | Variables used to impute | # Of imputed datasets | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Topical Vancomycin | Performed Not performed | 2816 (91.1%) | 276 (8.9%) | 1270 (45.1%) 1546 (54.9%) | 1292 (41.8%) 1800 (58.2%) | Arbitrary | Age, gender, etiology, ambulatory status, diaper dependence, prior spine surgery, type of surgery, pelvic instrumentation, region, surgical volume, SSI | 20 |
Betacaine Irrigations | Performed Not performed | 2816 (91.1%) | 276 (8.9%) | 748 (26.6%) 2068 (73.4%) | 773 (25.0%) 2319 (75.0%) | Arbitrary | Age, etiology, halo traction, type of surgery, pelvic instrumentation, region, surgical volume, SSI | 20 |
Multi-layer Closure | Performed Not performed | 2816 (91.1%) | 276 (8.9%) | 1487 (52.8%) 1329 (47.2%) | 1614 (52.2%) 1478 (47.8%) | Arbitrary | Age, etiology, diaper dependence, prior spine surgery, halo traction, type of surgery, pelvic instrumentation, region, surgical volume, SSI | 20 |
Dressing | Permeable Impermeable | 2818 (91.1%) | 274 (8.9%) | 404 (14.3%) 2414 (85.7%) | 2631 (85.1%) 461 (14.9%) | Arbitrary | Etiology, prior spine surgery, halo traction, type of surgery, pelvic instrumentation, region, surgical volume, SSI | 20 |
SPS | Enrolled Not enrolled | 3024 (97.8%) | 68 (2.2%) | 823 (27.2%) 2201(72.8%) | 829 (26.8%) 2263 (73.2%) | Arbitrary | Age, gender, etiology, ambulatory status, diaper dependence, prior spine surgery, halo traction, type of surgery, pelvic instrumentation, region, surgical volume, SSI | 20 |
Appendix 4 Predictive discrimination and calibration abilities in the training and testing sets in the five-fold cross-validation
Model with preventive care factors | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Training sample (N = 2474) | Testing sample (N = 618) | ||||||
Discrimination | Calibration | Discrimination | Calibration | ||||
ROC curve | Slope and box plot | Lorenz curve | Calibration plot | ROC curve | Slope and box plot | Lorenz curve | Calibration plot |
Experiment 1 | |||||||
AUC 0.80 SE 0.02 95% CI 0.76; 0. 84 | Slope 0.06 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.05; 0.07
| p25 2.22% p50 11.32% P75 32.08%
| E:O = 0.99
| AUC 0.70 SE 0.04 95% CI 0.62; 0.79
| Slope 0.03 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.0`; 0.04
| p25 3.85% p50 19.23% p 57.69%
| E:O = 0.99
|
HL GOF 0.01 | HL GOF < 0.001 | ||||||
CITL 0.01 | CITL 0.02 | ||||||
Slope 1.03 | Slope 0.60 | ||||||
Experiment 2 | |||||||
AUC 0.79 SE 0.02 95% CI 0.75; 0.83
| Slope 0.06 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.05; 0.06
| p25 2.95% p:50 11.43% p75 34.29%
| E: O = 0.99
| AUC 0.75 SE 0.05 95% CI 0.66;0.84
| Slope 0.04 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.03; 0.06
| p25 3.70% p50 14.81% p75 40.74%
| E:O = 0.91
|
HL GOF 0.001 | HL GOF 0.176 | ||||||
CITL: 0.01 | CITL 0.10 | ||||||
Slope: 1.03 | Slope 0.87 | ||||||
Experiment 3 | |||||||
AUC 0.77 SE 0.02 95% CI 0.73; 0.81
| Slope 0.05 SE 0.004 95% CI 0.04; 0.05
| p25 3.22% p50 12.26% p75 35.85%
| E:O = 0.99
| AUC 0.81 SE 0.04 95% CI 0.73; 0.90
| Slope 0.06 SE 0.01 95% CI; 0.05; 0.08
| p25 2.90% p50 11.54% p75 31.41%
| E:O = 1.00 |
HL GOF 0.002 | HL GOF 0.29 | ||||||
CITL: 0.01 | CITL − 0.01 | ||||||
Slope: 1.03 | Slope 1.40 | ||||||
Experiment 4 | |||||||
AUC 0.78 SE:0.02 95% CI 0.73; 0.82
| Slope 0.05 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.04; 0.06
| p25 3.85% p50 14.24% p75 37.36%
| E:O = 0.99
| AUC 0.80 SE 0.03 95% CI 0.73; 0.86
| Slope 0.05 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.03; 0.07
| p25 0% p50 3.81% p75 33.33%
| E:O = 1.03
|
HL GOF < 0.001 | HL GOF 0.01 | ||||||
CITL: 0.01 | CITL − 0.04 | ||||||
Slope 1.02 | Slope 0.91 | ||||||
Experiment 5 | |||||||
AUC 0.78 SE 0.02 95% CI 0.74; 0.82
| Slope 0.05 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.04; 0.06
| p25 1.82% p50 15.09% p75 38.68%
| E:O = 0.99
| AUC 0.78 SE 0.04 95% CI; 0.70; 0.87
| Slope 0.05 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.03; 0.07
| p25 7.13% p50 11.54% p75 33.65%
| E:O = 1.03
|
HL GOF 0.001 | HL GOF 0.20 | ||||||
CITL: 0.01 | CITL − 0.03 | ||||||
Slope: 1.04 | Slope 1.05 | ||||||
Average of five experiments | |||||||
AUC 0.78 SE 0.02 795% CI 0.74; 0.83 | Slope 0.05 SE 0.005 95% CI 0.05; 0.06 | p25 2.81% p50 12.87% p75 35.65% | E:O = 0.99 | AUC 0.77 SE 0.04 95% CI 0.69; 0.85 | Slope 0.05 SE 0.01 95% CI 0.03; 0.06 | p25 3.52% p50 12.19% p75 39.37% | E:O = 0.99 |
HL GOF 0.002 | HL GOF 0.16 | ||||||
CITL 0.01 | CITL 0.01 | ||||||
Slope 1.03 | Slope 0.97 |
Appendix 5 Accumulative AUC for predictive model including preventive factors and risk factors
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Matsumoto, H., Bonsignore-Opp, L., Warren, S.I. et al. Strategies reducing risk of surgical-site infection following pediatric spinal deformity surgery. Spine Deform 11, 71–86 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00559-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00559-9