Incidence and Recurrence of Deep Spine Surgical Site Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine a pooled incidence rate for deep surgical site infection (SSI) and compare available evidence for deep SSI management among instrumented spinal fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Deep SSI is a common complication of instrumented spinal surgery associated with patient morbidity, poorer long-term outcomes, and higher health care costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and Embase and included studies with an adult patient population undergoing posterior instrumented spinal fusion of the thoracic, lumbar, or sacral spine, with a reported outcome of deep SSI. The primary outcome was the incidence of deep SSI. Secondary outcomes included persistent deep SSI after initial debridement, mean number of debridements, and microbiology. The subsequent meta-analysis combined outcomes for surgical site infection using a random-effects model and quantified heterogeneity using the χ 2 test and the I2 statistic. In addition, a qualitative analysis of management strategies was reported. RESULTS: Of 9087 potentially eligible studies, we included 54 studies (37 comparative and 17 noncomparative). The pooled SSI incidence rate was 1.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.9%) based on 209,347 index procedures. Up to 25% of patients (95% CI, 16.8%-35.3%), had a persistent infection. These patients require an average of 1.4 (range: 0.8-1.9) additional debridements. Infecting organisms were commonly gram-positive, and among them, staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent (46%). Qualitative analysis suggests implant retention, especially for early deep SSI management. Evidence was limited for other management strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled incidence rate of deep SSI post-thoracolumbar spinal surgery is 1.5%. The rate of recurrence and repeat debridement is at least 12%, up to 25%. Persistent infection is a significant risk, highlighting the need for standardized treatment protocols. Our review further demonstrates heterogeneity in management strategies. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to develop better evidence around deep SSI incidence and management in the instrumented thoracolumbar adult spinal fusion population.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".