4.4 Article

Risk factors for spinal surgical-site infections in a community hospital: A case-control study

期刊

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/502112

关键词

-

资金

  1. ODCDC CDC HHS [UR8/CCU715087] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To characterize risk factors for surgical-site infection after spinal surgery. DESIGN: A case-control study. SETTING: A 113-bed community hospital. METHOD: From January 1998 through June 2000, the incidence of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing laminectomy, spinal fusion surgery, or both increased at community hospital A. We compared 13 patients who acquired surgical-site infections after laminectomy, spinal fusion surgery, or both with 47 patients who were operated on during the same time period but did not acquire a surgical-site infection. Information collected included demographics, risk factors, personnel involved in the operations, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: Of 13 case-patients, 9 (69%) were obese, 9 (69%) had spinal compression, 5 (38.5%) had a history of tobacco use, and 4 (31%) had diabetes. Oxacillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (6 of 13; 46%) was the most common organism isolated. Significant risk factors for postoperative spinal surgical-site infection were dural tear during the surgical procedure and the use of glue to cement the dural patch (3 of 13 [23%] vs 1 of 47 [2.1%]; P = .02) and American Society of Anesthesiologists risk class of 3 or more (6 of 13 [46.2%] vs 7 of 47 [15%]; P = .02). Case-patients were more likely to have prolonged length of stay (median, 16 vs 4 days; P < .001). The average excess length of stay was 11 days and the excess cost per case was $12,477. CONCLUSION: Dural tear and the use of glue should be evaluated as potential risk factors for spinal surgical-site infection. Systematic observation for potential lapses in sterile technique and surgical processes that may increase the risk of infection may help prevent spinal surgical-site infection.

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

4.4
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