TY - JOUR
T1 - Dynamic stabilization
T2 - A nidus for infection?
AU - Goldstein, Ira M.
AU - Agarwal, Nitin
AU - Mammis, Antonios
AU - Barrese, James C.
AU - Christiano, Lana D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
PY - 2015/3/4
Y1 - 2015/3/4
N2 - Introduction: Dynamic stabilization offers an adjunct to fusion with motion preservation. In comparison, standard instrumented fusion (if) consists of titanium screws and rods/plates, which do not allow for motion at the level of the fusion. The reported infection rate following a standard if ranges from 0.2% to 7%. Methods: a retrospective chart review of 142 patients who underwent posterior lumbar stabilization procedures was conducted. Ten patients received dynamic stabilization and 132 patients had a standard if. Rates of infection, requiring hardware removal, were compared between the aforementioned groups. Results: Of the 132 patients undergoing posterior if, three developed a deep wound infection requiring removal of hardware (2.3%). Of the 10 patients undergoing dynamic stabilization, three developed a deep wound infection (30%) with 2 requiring removal of hardware (20%), secondary to persistent deep wound infection or osteomyelitis at the pedicle screw sites. There was a significantly increased risk of deep wound infection (p < 0.0001) with the use of dynamic stabilization compared to standard if. Conclusions: Our series demonstrates that the infection rate in patients undergoing dynamic stabilization is higher than the infection rate for instrumented fusion without a significant difference in comorbidity scores. We postulate that the polycarbonate urethane spacer acts as a medium for bacteria, whereas the titanium screws and rods are smooth, solid, and inert, resulting in a lower risk of infection.
AB - Introduction: Dynamic stabilization offers an adjunct to fusion with motion preservation. In comparison, standard instrumented fusion (if) consists of titanium screws and rods/plates, which do not allow for motion at the level of the fusion. The reported infection rate following a standard if ranges from 0.2% to 7%. Methods: a retrospective chart review of 142 patients who underwent posterior lumbar stabilization procedures was conducted. Ten patients received dynamic stabilization and 132 patients had a standard if. Rates of infection, requiring hardware removal, were compared between the aforementioned groups. Results: Of the 132 patients undergoing posterior if, three developed a deep wound infection requiring removal of hardware (2.3%). Of the 10 patients undergoing dynamic stabilization, three developed a deep wound infection (30%) with 2 requiring removal of hardware (20%), secondary to persistent deep wound infection or osteomyelitis at the pedicle screw sites. There was a significantly increased risk of deep wound infection (p < 0.0001) with the use of dynamic stabilization compared to standard if. Conclusions: Our series demonstrates that the infection rate in patients undergoing dynamic stabilization is higher than the infection rate for instrumented fusion without a significant difference in comorbidity scores. We postulate that the polycarbonate urethane spacer acts as a medium for bacteria, whereas the titanium screws and rods are smooth, solid, and inert, resulting in a lower risk of infection.
KW - Dynamic stabilization
KW - Hardware removal
KW - Infection
KW - Posterior lumbar fusion
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84931094755
U2 - 10.3109/00207454.2014.908293
DO - 10.3109/00207454.2014.908293
M3 - Article
C2 - 24670255
AN - SCOPUS:84931094755
SN - 0020-7454
VL - 125
SP - 191
EP - 200
JO - International Journal of Neuroscience
JF - International Journal of Neuroscience
IS - 3
ER -