MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983033314 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e318141f99d

Therapy of Spinal Wound Infections Using Vacuum-assisted Wound Closure: Risk Factors Leading to Resistance to Treatment

2008· article· en· W1983033314 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryDebridement (dental)Negative-pressure wound therapyWound infectionWound closureWound healingAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: This study retrospectively reviewed spine surgical procedures complicated by wound infection and managed by a protocol including the use of vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC). OBJECTIVE: To define factors influencing the number of debridements needed before the final wound closure by applying VAC for patients with postoperative spinal wound infections. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VAC has been suggested as a safe and probably effective method for the treatment of spinal wound infections. The risk factors for infection resistance and need for debridement revisions after VAC placement are unknown. METHODS: Seventy-three consecutive patients with 79 wound infections after undergoing spine surgery were studied (6 of them had recurrence of infection). All patients were taken to the operating room for irrigation and debridement under general anesthesia followed by placement of the VAC with subsequent delayed closure of the wound. Linear regression and t test were used to identify if the following variables were risk factors for the resistance of infection to VAC treatment: timing of clinical appearance of infection, depth of infection (deep or superficial), presence of instrumentation, positive culture for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or more than 1 microorganism, age of the patient, and presence of other comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 34 males and 39 females with an average age of 58.4 years (21 to 82). Once the VAC was initiated, there was an average of 1.4 procedures until and including closure of the wound. The wound was closed an average of 7 days (range 5 to 14) after the placement of the initial VAC on the wound. The average follow-up was 14 months (range 12 to 28). All of the patients but 2 achieved a clean, closed wound without removal of instrumentation at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Sixty patients had implants (instrumentation or allograft) within the site of wound infection. Thirteen patients had a decompression with exposed dura. Sixty-four infections (81%) presented with a draining wound within the first 6 weeks postoperatively. Sixty-nine infections (87.3%) were deep below the fascia. There was no statistical significance (P>0.05) of all tested risk factors for the resistance of infection to treatment with the VAC system. The parameter more related to repeat VAC procedures was the culture of MRSA or multiple bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: VAC therapy may be an effective adjunct in closing spinal wounds even after the repeat procedures. The MRSA or multibacterial infections seem to be most likely to need repeat debridements and VAC treatment before final wound closure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it