Journal
NEUROMODULATION
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 435-441Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.02.227
Keywords
Antibacterial envelope; deep brain stimulation; functional neurosurgery; implantable pulse generator; surgical site infection
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This retrospective study analyzed the medical records of adult patients who underwent initial deep brain stimulation (DBS) implantation surgery at Stanford Hospital from November 14, 2012, to November 9, 2020. The results showed that the use of antibacterial envelopes reduced the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) in DBS surgery. However, this association did not remain statistically significant after controlling for confounding variables. Future prospective studies are needed to determine the efficacy of antibacterial envelopes in reducing post-DBS infections.
Introduction:Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery is an established treatment for many patients with neurologic disease, and a common complication of DBS is surgical site infection (SSI). In 2016, neurosurgeons at our institution began enclosing implantable pulse generators (IPGs) within fully absorbable, antibacterial envelopes in patients who underwent initial DBS implantation. We sought to determine whether the use of antibacterial envelopes reduced IPG-related SSIs. Materials and Methods:We performed a retrospective chart review of all adult patients who underwent initial DBS implantation at Stanford Hospital between November 14, 2012, and November 9, 2020. Operative details, perioperative antibiotics, comor-bidities, and postoperative complications were extracted for all patients. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with SSIs within three months of surgery, and interrupted time-series analysis was performed to assess whether the departmental adoption of the antibacterial envelope led to a reduction in IPG SSIs. Results:Of 344 patients who underwent initial IPG implantation with the antibacterial envelope, one developed an SSI within three months of surgery (0.3%), compared with six of 204 patients (2.9%) who underwent the same procedure without the antibacterial envelope (odds ratio: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01-0.80, p = 0.031). Univariate logistic regression revealed that the antibacterial envelope and 2000-mg intravenous cefazolin perioperatively were associated with reduced SSI risk, whereas no other factors reached statistical significance. After adjusting for comorbidities, no association remained statistically significant. Interrupted time-series analysis showed a reduction in SSIs after 2016, but the effect was not significant. Conclusions:The adoption of antibacterial envelopes was found to reduce IPG SSIs at the univariate level, but this association did not remain significant after controlling for confounding variables including perioperative antibiotic administration. Although encouraging, this study does not conclusively establish that the use of antibacterial pouches in patients who underwent initial DBS implantation reduces the incidence of IPG SSIs. Future prospective studies that control for confounding variables are necessary to determine the efficacy of antibacterial envelopes in reducing post-DBS infections at the IPG site before clear recommendations can be made.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available