Prevention of surgical site infections in spine surgery: an international survey of clinical practices among expert spine surgeons

Study Design: Questionnaire-based survey.Objectives: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in spine surgery but universal guidelines for SSI prevention are lacking. The objectives of this study are to depict a global status quo on implemented prevention strategies in spine surgery, common themes of practice and determine key areas for future research.Methods: An 80-item survey was distributed among spine surgeons worldwide via email. The questionnaire was designed and approved by an International Consensus Group on spine SSI. Consensus was defined as more than 60% of participants agreeing to a specific prevention strategy.Results: Four hundred seventy-two surgeons participated in the survey. Screening for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is not common, whereas preoperative decolonization is performed in almost half of all hospitals. Body mass index (BMI) was not important for surgery planning. In contrast, elevated HbAIc level and hypoalbuminemia were often considered as reasons to postpone surgery. Cefazoline is the common drug for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine is mainly used for skin disinfection. Double-gloving, wound irrigation, and tissue-conserving surgical techniques are routine in the operating room (OR). Local antibiotic administration is not common. Wound closure techniques and postoperative wound dressing routines vary greatly between the participating institutions.Conclusions: With this study we provide an international overview on the heterogeneity of SSI prevention strategies in spine surgery. We demonstrated a large heterogeneity for pre-, peri- and postoperative measures to prevent SSI. Our data illustrated the need for developing universal guidelines and for testing areas of controversy in prospective clinical trails.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain

Background and purpose - Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. Patients and methods - An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions. Results - Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on preexisting tools. Interpretation - The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient's entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver