Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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 ± 6.0 years, 65.7% were girls, and mean follow-up was 41.7 ± 26.9 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.

Original publication

DOI

10.1503/cjs.006014

Type

Journal article

Journal

Can j surg

Publication Date

01/02/2015

Volume

58

Pages

006014 - 006014