Clinical Outcome of Deep Wound Infection After Instrumented Posterior Spinal Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case control study. OBJECTIVE: Determine the impact of infection on clinical outcome in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The outcome of patients treated for infection after spinal surgery is not well established because of variability in cohort identification, definition of infection, outcomes instrument, use of a control group, and/or sample size. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were included. Sixteen patients ("infection group") met inclusion criteria of deep wound infection after spinal fusion with posterior segmental instrumentation (including combined approach). A 1:1 matched cohort ("control group") was created based on primary or revision status, length of fusion, diagnosis, and age. Postoperative patient outcomes were evaluated using the physical components of SF-36 v2.0 with minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: No significant difference in the Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, and General Health domains was detected between the infection group and control group. Mean follow-up was 62 months. Mean Physical Component Summary was 41.4 in the infection group and 44.3 in the control group (P = 0.6). Infection occurred early in 12 patients and late in 4 patients. Most common organisms isolated were Staphylococcus epidermidis, Enterococcus sp., and Staphylococcus aureus. Multiple debridements were significantly associated with polymicrobial infections and later pseudarthrosis requiring reoperation. CONCLUSION: An aggressive approach to deep wound infection emphasizing early irrigation and debridement allowed preservation of instrumentation and successful fusion in most cases. At the conclusion of treatment, patients can expect a medium-term clinical outcome similar to patients in whom this complication did not occur.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".