4.5 Review

Risk factors for surgical site infection following spinal surgery A meta-analysis

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028836

关键词

incidence; meta-analysis; risk factors; spinal surgery; surgical site infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used a meta-analysis to investigate risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery. The results showed that fusion approach, osteotomy, transfusion, a history of diabetes and surgery, hypertension, surgical location, osteoporosis, and the number of fusion levels were associated with SSI.
Study design: A meta-analysis. Background: We performed a meta-analysis to explore risk factors of surgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery. Methods: An extensive search of literature was performed in English database of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and Chinese database of CNKI and WANFANG (up to October 2020). We collected factors including demographic data and surgical factor. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and STATA 12.0. Results: Totally, 26 studies were included in the final analysis. In our study, the rate of SSI after spinal surgery was 2.9% (1222 of 41,624). Our data also showed that fusion approach (anterior vs posterior; anterior vs combined), osteotomy, transfusion, a history of diabetes and surgery, hypertension, surgical location (cervical vs thoracic; lumbar vs thoracic), osteoporosis and the number of fusion levels were associated with SSI after spinal surgery. However, age, sex, a history of smoking, body mass index, fusion approach (posterior vs combined), surgical location (cervical vs lumbar), duration of surgery, blood loss, using steroid, dural tear and albumin were not associated with development of SSI. Conclusions: In our study, many factors were associated with increased risk of SSI after spinal surgery. We hope this article can provide a reference for spinal surgeons to prevent SSI after spinal surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据