Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5205_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •2.3 Diagnostic Modalities
- •2.4 Antibiotic Stewardship Principles
- •1.1 Historical Background
- •1.2 Epidemiology
- •1.4 Management
- •1.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.5 Surgical Management
- •Bibliography
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Pharmacokinetics
- •3.3 Fluoroquinolones
- •3.6 Cephalosporins
- •3.7 Ceftobiprole
- •3.9 Linezolid
- •3.11 Daptomycin
- •3.12 Fosfomycin
- •3.15 Conclusion
- •References
- •4.1 Aetiology
- •4.1.2 Risk Factors
- •4.1.2.2 Bacteria
- •4.1.2.3 Other Causative Agents
- •4.2 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
- •4.2.1 Summary
- •References
- •5: Bacterial Resistance
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.3.1 Antibiotic Destruction
- •5.3.4 Target Replacement or Target Bypass
- •5.3.5 Target Site Alteration
- •References
- •6.1 Blood Chemistry Tests
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 New Diagnostic Tools
- •7.2.1 Serological Tests
- •7.2.1.1 D-dimer
- •7.2.1.2 Fibrinogen
- •7.2.1.3 Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio
- •7.2.1.4 Procalcitonin
- •7.2.2 Synovial Tests
- •7.2.2.1 Mass Spectrometry
- •7.2.2.2 Alpha Defensin
- •7.2.2.3 Synovial C-Reactive Protein
- •7.2.2.4 Synovial Interlukin-6
- •7.2.2.5 Calprotectin
- •7.2.3.1 Culture Sonication
- •7.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Etiology
- •8.4 Clinical Diagnosis
- •8.5 Laboratory Investigations
- •8.6 Biopsy
- •8.7 Radiological Investigations
- •8.8 Medical Management
- •8.8.1 Acute Osteomyelitis
- •8.8.2 Septic Arthritis
- •8.9 Pyomyositis
- •8.10 Surgical Management
- •8.11 Acute Osteomyelitis
- •8.12 Septic Arthritis
- •8.13 Complications
- •8.14 Chronic Osteomyelitis
- •8.15 Pathological Fractures
- •8.16 Post-infective Segmental Bone Loss
- •8.17 Post-infective Physeal Growth Arrest
- •8.18 Post-septic Hip Sequelae
- •8.19 Summary
- •References
- •9.2 Locations
- •Bibliography
- •10: Chronic Osteomyelitis
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Etiology
- •10.3 Epidemiology
- •10.4 Pathophysiology
- •10.7 Laboratory Test
- •10.8 Diagnostic Radiology
- •10.11 The Host
- •10.12 The Disease
- •10.13 Treatment
- •10.14 Systemic Antibiotic Therapy
- •10.15 Local Antibiotic Depots
- •10.16 Surgical Treatment
- •10.18 Soft Tissue Coverage
- •11.1.6 Imaging
- •11.2 Risk Factors
- •11.3 Common Species
- •10.20 Results
- •10.21 Summary
- •References
- •11.1 Diagnosis
- •11.1.2 Labs
- •11.1.3 Synovial Fluid
- •11.1.4 Culture
- •11.1.5 Histopathology
- •11.4.1 Soft Tissue
- •11.4.2 Bone
- •11.4.3 Joint
- •11.4.4 Periprosthetic
- •References
- •Further Readings
- •12.6 Conclusion
- •12.7 Biography
- •References
- •13.1 Vertebral Osteomyelitis
- •13.1.1 History
- •13.1.2 Epidemiology
- •13.1.3 Pathophysiology
- •13.1.4 Most Common Manifestations
- •13.1.5 Diagnosis
- •13.1.6 Imaging Studies
- •13.1.7 Treatment
- •13.2 Vertebral Tuberculosis
- •13.2.1 History
- •13.2.2 Epidemiology
- •13.2.3 Pathophysiology
- •13.2.4 Most Common Manifestations
- •13.2.5 Pediatric Spinal Tuberculosis
- •13.2.6 Diagnosis
- •13.2.7 Treatment
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2.2 Primary Injury
- •14.2.3 Early Versus Late Infection
- •14.2.5.1 Sequestrum
- •14.2.6 Patient Comorbid Factors
- •14.3 Treatment Options
- •14.3.3 Soft Tissue Coverage
- •14.3.4 External Fixation
- •14.3.5 Antibiotic Loaded Cement/Bioceramics
- •14.3.6 Membrane-Induced Osteogenesis (Masquelet Technique)
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.1.1 Conservative Approach
- •15.1.2 Reconstructive Approach
- •15.2 Pedicled Flaps
- •15.2.1 Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flap
- •15.2.1.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.2.3 Gastrocnemius Flap
- •15.2.3.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.2.4 Soleus Flap
- •15.2.4.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.2.5 Vascularized Fibula Flap
- •15.2.5.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.2.6.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.2.7 Sural Flap
- •15.2.7.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.3 Microsurgical Flaps
- •15.3.1 Anterolateral Thigh Flap
- •15.3.1.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.3.2 Latissimus Dorsi Muscle Flap
- •15.3.2.1 Surgical Technique
- •15.3.3 Gracilis Free-Flap
- •15.3.3.1 Surgical Technique
- •References
- •16: Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis (DFO)
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.3.3 Radiographic Examinations
- •16.3.3.1 X-ray
- •16.3.3.2 MRI
- •16.3.3.3 PET-CT
- •16.3.4 Biopsy
- •16.4.1 Antibiotics Therapy
- •16.4.2 Conservative Surgery
- •16.4.3 Aggressive Surgery
- •References
- •17.1.1 Osteoradionecrosis (ORN)
- •17.1.1.1 Prevalence
- •17.1.1.3 Management
- •17.1.2 Risk Prediction
- •17.1.2.1 Conclusion
- •17.1.3.1 Medications
- •17.1.3.3 Patients At-Risk
- •17.2 Pathophysiology
- •17.2.1 Bone Remodeling Inhibition
- •17.2.3 Angiogenesis Inhibition
- •17.2.4 Acquired Immune Dysfunction
- •17.3.2 Local Factors
- •17.3.2.1 Dentoalveolar Procedures
- •17.3.2.2 Anatomic Factors
- •17.3.2.3 Concomitant Oral Disease
- •17.3.2.4 Treatment Goals
- •17.3.3 MRONJ Prevention Strategies
- •17.3.4 Treatment Strategies
- •17.3.4.1 Nonoperative Therapy
- •17.3.5 Operative Therapy
- •17.3.6.1 Pulpitis
- •17.3.6.2 Acute Apical Periodontitis (Periapical Abscess)
- •17.3.6.3 Periapical Granuloma
- •17.3.6.4 Periapical Cyst
- •17.3.7.3 Garre’s Sclerosing Osteomyelitis
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Risk Factors
- •18.3 Evidence-Based Preventive Measures
- •18.3.1 Preoperative Measures
- •18.3.1.1 Surgical Hand Preparation
- •18.3.1.5 Preoperative Bathing or Showering
- •18.3.1.6 Preoperative Skin Preparation
- •18.3.1.7 Hair Removal
- •18.3.1.8 Glycemic Control
- •18.3.2 Intraoperative Measures
- •18.3.2.2 Second Dose Antibiotic
- •18.3.2.3 Incisional Wound Irrigation
- •18.3.2.4 Perioperative Oxygenation
- •18.3.2.8 Behavioral Aspects
- •18.3.3 Postoperative Measures
- •18.3.3.1 Postsurgical Wound Care
- •18.3.3.2 Postoperative Antibiotics
- •References
- •19: Periprosthetic Joint Infection: General Aspects
- •19.2 “Local” Patient Risk Factors
- •19.4.1 Presurgical
- •19.4.2 Intraoperative
- •19.4.3 Post-operative
- •19.4.3.1 “Mechanical” Thromboembolic Prophylaxis [101, 102]
- •References
- •20: Low-Grade Periprosthetic Infections
- •20.1 Diagnosis
- •20.3 Outcomes
- •20.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.5.1 Multidisciplinary Approach
- •21.5.2 Surgical Strategies
- •21.5.3 Other Therapeutic Strategies
- •References
- •22.1.1 Introduction
- •22.2 PJI After Shoulder Arthroplasty
- •22.2.1 Epidemiology
- •22.2.2 Risk Factors
- •22.2.3.2 Diagnostic Criteria
- •22.2.3.3 Clinical Presentation
- •22.2.3.4 Radiology
- •22.2.3.6 Synovial Aspirate
- •22.2.4 Management
- •22.2.4.1 Prevention
- •22.2.4.2 Treatment
- •Implant Retention
- •One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty
- •Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty
- •Antibiotic Spacer
- •Resection Arthroplasty
- •22.3 PJI after Elbow Arthroplasty
- •22.3.2 Risk Factors
- •22.3.3 Diagnosis
- •22.3.4 Treatment
- •22.3.4.1 Implant Retention
- •22.3.4.2 One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty
- •22.3.4.3 Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty
- •22.3.4.4 Salvage Procedures
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Epidemiology
- •23.3 Pathophysiology
- •23.4 Etiology
- •23.6 Diagnosis
- •23.6.1 Lab Test
- •23.6.2 Imaging
- •23.6.3 Cultures
- •23.7 Risk Factors
- •23.8 Surgical Treatment
- •23.8.2 One-Stage Revision Surgery
- •23.8.3 Two-Stage Revision Surgery
- •23.9 Conclusions
- •References
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.2 Knee
- •24.2.1 Overview
- •24.2.3 Static Spacers
- •24.2.4 Static Versus Articulating Spacers
- •24.2.5 Distal Femoral or Proximal Tibial Replacement Infection
- •24.2.6 Stage 1 Arthrodesis Spacers
- •24.2.7 Articulating DFR/PTR Spacers
- •24.3 Hip
- •24.3.1 Static Spacers
- •24.3.2 Articulating Spacers
- •References
- •25: Native Hip Joint Infection
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.2.1 Epidemiology
- •25.2.2 Etiology
- •25.2.3 Clinical Presentation
- •25.2.4 Diagnosis
- •25.2.6 Treatment
- •25.3 Infection Following Hip Preservation Surgery
- •25.3.1 Hip Arthroscopy
- •25.3.1.1 Epidemiology
- •25.3.1.2 Diagnosis
- •25.3.1.4 Treatment
- •25.3.2 Periacetabular Osteotomy
- •25.3.2.1 Epidemiology
- •25.3.2.2 Diagnosis
- •25.3.2.4 Treatment
- •25.3.3 Surgical Hip Dislocation
- •25.3.3.1 Epidemiology
- •25.4.1 Epidemiology
- •25.4.2 Diagnosis
- •25.4.3 Treatment
- •References
- •26: Infective Complications After Trauma Surgeries
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.3 Epidemiology
- •26.4 Risk Factors
- •26.5 Pathogenesis
- •26.8 Treatment
- •26.8.1 Radical Debridement
- •26.8.2 Implant Handling
- •26.9 Local Antimicrobial Therapy
- •26.9.1.1 Ilizarov Technique
- •26.9.1.2 The Masquelet Technique
- •26.9.1.4 3D Printing
- •26.12.1 Pre-operative Measures
- •26.12.1.1 Skin Preparation Solutions
- •26.12.1.2 Skin Hair Management
- •26.12.2 Peri-operative Management
- •26.12.2.1 Drapes
- •26.12.2.2 Double Gloving
- •26.12.2.3 Antibiotics Coated Implants
- •References
- •27: Infective Complications After Open Fractures
- •27.1 Introduction
- •27.2 Epidemiology
- •27.3 Pathophysiology
- •27.4 Risk Factors
- •27.5.1 Laboratory Examination
- •27.5.2 Imaging Procedures
- •27.6 Nuclear Imaging
- •27.7 Microbiology
- •27.8 Molecular Technologies
- •27.9 Histopathology
- •Irrigation
- •27.10.1.2 Appropriate Intravenous Antibiotics
- •Timing
- •Local Antibiotics
- •27.10.1.3 Meticulous Injury Zone Excision (Debridement)
- •Irrigation
- •27.10.1.4 Fracture Stabilization
- •27.10.1.5 Second Look
- •27.10.1.6 Soft Tissue Closure
- •27.10.2.1 Advantages
- •References
- •28.1 Introduction
- •References
- •29: Infective Complications After Spinal Instrumentation
- •29.1 Introduction
- •29.4 Diagnosis
- •29.5 Treatment
- •29.7 Conclusions
- •References

28 Infections inOrthopedic Oncology
407
doses of corticosteroids and chemo/radiation
therapy [57, 58].
The onset of SSI in allograft reconstructions is
usually within 4months, a careful follow-up can
lead to an early detection and treatment of SSI
with better outcomes for patients [59].
Treatment for SSI in allograft reconstruction
is rst, surgical debridement followed by targeted
antibiotic therapy (effective in 18% of cases),
usually effective in low-grade single microbial
infections [60].
Usually, antibiotic treatment is administered
intravenously for 2 weeks and then prolonged
orally for 16weeks [61, 62]. Other than the normal preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, careful
antisepsis in the OR, and reduction of operative
times, other attempted preventive treatments for
SSI are the use of antibiotic-impregnated bone
allografts [55, 62] and the use of antibioticloaded bone cement [63].
If debridement and antibiotic administration
fails, the SSI treatment is allograft removal, temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer, and targeted antibiotic therapy for 3months (a 2-stages
treatment), followed by reconstruction with
another allograft or prosthesis [59].
After the second reconstruction, the SSI rate
rises to 34%. Similarly, Mankin [64] describes a
higher risk of SSI after a second (revision)
allograft surgery, rising from 7.9% to 12.8%. The
failure of the 2-stage treatment can lead in severe
cases to amputation [53].
tion after a curettage surgery is a post-operative
fracture, representing almost 26% of all complications [66], but SSI can lead to a higher rate of
graft failure and subsequent post-curettage fracture [67].
Risk factors analysis for SSI in curettage
shows that smoking history, a distal tumor location (like distal femur), and low serum albumin
are associated with a higher rate of SSI [65]. In
some sites of curettage, complications and SSI
rates are more frequently reported, like in the
radius and distal radius [68].
Cavity lling after curettage with antibioticloaded polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone
cement has a reduced risk of infection [65], while
the use of allografts to ll the cavity after benign
bone tumor curettage has a higher rate of infection, with an associated low, but possible, risk of
disease transmission and immune rejection [67].
As in other cases of SSI in Orthopaedic
Oncology, a careful follow-up can bring to
early detection and prompt treatment of SSI
after curettage surgery, leading to better outcomes [29].
Treatment is usually debridement, possibly
cavity-lling removal and substitution with
antibiotic- loaded PMMA, targeted antibiotic
therapy, and adequate soft tissue coverage [65].
28.5 Infections inResection
inPelvis withandWithout
Reconstruction
28.4 Infections inCurettage
Surgeries
Surgical Site Infection (SSI) rate after curettage
surgery in orthopedic oncology can widely vary,
based on what is considered SSI, it can range
between 4.1% [65] and 10.7% [66], when considered as SSI also wound infections and supercial
infections.
Overall complications rate in curettage surgery is reported to be around 9.6% [66] of these
complications up to 10.7% are infections
(Fig.28.3). Anyway, it is important to remember
that the most common post-operative complica-
Surgical Site Infection (SSI) in pelvis surgery is a
rather common and at the same time dangerous
complication. The necessity to obtain adequate
exposure to identify and protect the neurovascular structures and to obtain wide margins of
resection in tumor surgery, associated with larger
soft tissue damage and longer surgical times
brings to a high infection rate. Reconstruction
with prosthesis and allograft after pelvis bone
tumor resection is often required to have a good
function in case of internal hemipelvectomy or to
give back integrity to the pelvic ring, while in
some minor soft tissue or bone resections, without compromising the integrity of the pelvic ring,

408
ab
A. Crimì et al.
c
Fig. 28.3 (a) X-rays after curettage, Titanium Elastic
Nails xation, and allograft lling of a Unicameral Bone
Cyst in an 8 years old female patient, (b) surgical site
no prosthetic or allograft reconstruction is needed
[69, 70].
Pelvis orthopedic oncology surgery shows a
rate of infection between 10% and 47% of patients
[10–15, 70–87]. SSI has a lower rate in resections
without reconstruction, between 10% and 15%,
while there is a higher SSI rate in allograft reconstructions, reaching the highest rate of SSI, 47%
[17]. It is known that infection is the most dreadful complication after allograft reconstruction in
pelvic tumor surgery [10, 75, 88].
A study shows a higher SSI rate in allograft
reconstruction compared to prosthetic reconstruction [89], while another study highlights a
similar 38% SSI rate between allograft and prosthetic reconstruction [79]. A large series [17] of
pelvis resection and reconstruction surgeries
cd
infection, 40days after surgery, (c, d) surgical debridement, irrigation, and microbiology samples for cultures
and susceptibilities
showed that prosthetic reconstruction has a 30%
SSI rate, allograft reconstruction has a 28% SSI
rate, composite allograft, and prosthetic reconstruction has a 20% SSI rate, surgeries without
reconstruction have a 15% SSI rate [17].
Risk factors analyzed as a type of surgical
resection, oncological stage, and chemo/radiation therapy do not show a signicantly higher
risk of SSI, the only predictor of complications is
an age >50years [76]. Radiation and chemotherapy are signicantly correlated to a higher risk of
SSI in univariate analysis, this signicance is no
longer present in multivariate analysis, with pelvic reconstruction being the only independent
prognostic factor for SSI [17].
SSI onset is at a mean of 6–8months after surgery, but it is still possible up to 2 years post-

cd
28 Infections inOrthopedic Oncology
a b
409
Fig. 28.4 (a) Surgical site infection after soft tissue sar-
coma resection and partial iliac wing resection, without
reconstruction, (b) debridement, irrigation, and resection
operatively. A careful follow-up can determine
early detection and prompt treatment, with better
outcomes [10, 73].
Treatment of SSI in pelvis cases is accurate
debridement (multiple times when required),
antibiotic treatment (targeted on the bacteria and
susceptibilities obtained from microbiology samples), and adequate soft tissue reconstruction
of necrotic/infected bone, (c) antibiotic-loaded bone
cement, (d) soft tissue reconstruction with a vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous ap
implant/allograft removal in almost 46% of cases,
with loss of function and worse outcomes.
External hemipelvectomy as the endpoint of SSI
treatment is a last-step option rarely needed [17].
SSI in pelvis oncology cases has the burden of
longer hospital admissions, delayed adjuvant
therapies, higher costs of treatments, higher morbidity, and higher mortality [17].
after resection [10–14, 70–83, 86, 87]. The multidisciplinary approach with the Plastic Surgeon
to obtain good soft tissue coverage is crucial at
the time of the rst surgery and in the treatment
of the possible infective complications [90, 91],
(Fig.28.4).
In wound complications, supercial SSI, and
deep SSI in pelvis cases without reconstruction,
the success rate of this treatment can possibly be
80%. The worst case is represented by a deep SSI
in pelvis reconstruction cases, it leads to an
28.6 Infections inResection
inSpine andSacrum with/
Without Reconstruction
Surgical site infection (SSI) in sacrectomy without reconstruction is a common complication,
with a range between 32% [91] and 56% [92] in
surgeries for chordomas, while in sacrectomies
for giant cell tumor of the bone (27 cases from a

410
ab
cd
A. Crimì et al.
single institution) a series shows no cases of deep
infections [93]. Surgical treatment for Chordomas
is known to have a high risk of infective complications [94].
SSI onset is most frequent in between 2 [92]
and 4weeks [93] post-operatively, in almost 70%
of cases and in all cases within 6months from
surgery, usually the infection is multi-microbial
(up to 74% of cases) with Enterococcus,
Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
being the most frequent pathogens [92, 93].
Multiple risk factors are investigated to understand a possible inuence on SSI rate. There is
not statistically signicant higher risk of SSI correlated to previous treatments, level of resections,
presence of colostomy, operating time, bowel
incontinence, age, and tumor volume [93]. There
is a trend of higher risk of SSI with neoadjuvant
radiation therapy [92]. In another study, radiation
therapy is associated with a higher rate of wound
complications and a higher risk of infection in
other studies [95, 96].
Deep surgical site infection and wound complications are the most common reasons for reoperation [97]. Up to 31% of SSI cases require
another surgery [91]. Treatment of deep surgical
site infections in chordoma consists of multiple
debridement surgeries associated with microbiological cultures and tailored antibiotic treatment
based on susceptibilities [93]. The use of rectus
abdomini aps, for soft tissue defect reconstruction, showed a statistically signicant lower risk
of wound dehiscence and SSI [98], (Fig.28.5).
SSI in a debilitated patient after a demolitive
chordoma surgery can be a dreadful complication, leading to sepsis and, in the worst cases,
death of the patient, in a series sepsis was shown
to be the cause of death for 5% of patients [98].
Fig. 28.5 (a, b) Deep surgical site infection and super-
cial wound complications after chordoma surgery are
quite common, (c, d) reconstruction of the soft tissue
defects can be performed successfully with a vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous ap

28 Infections inOrthopedic Oncology
411
References
1. Bourget-Murray J, Bansal R, Soroceanu A, Piroozfar
S, Railton P, Johnston K, Johnson A, Powell
J. Assessment of risk factors for early-onset deep
surgical site infection following primary total hip
arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Bone Jt Infect.
2021;6:443–50.
2. Pei H, Wang H, Chen M, Ma L, Liu G, Ding W.Surgical
site infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion
and instrumentation in patients with lumbar degenerative disease. Int Wound J. 2021;18:608–15.
3. Matsumoto H, Larson EL, Warren SI, Hammoor
BT, Bonsignore-Opp L, Troy MJ, Barrett KK,
Striano BM, Li G, Terry MB, et al. A clinical risk
model for surgical site infection following pediatric spine deformity surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am.
2022;104:364–75.
4. Staals EL, Sambri A, Campanacci DA, Muratori F,
Leithner A, Gilg MM, Gortzak Y, Van De Sande M,
Dierselhuis E, Mascard E, et al. Expandable distal
femur megaprosthesis: a European musculoskeletal
oncology society study on 299 cases. J Surg Oncol.
2020;122:760–5.
5. Pala E, Trovarelli G, Calabro T, Angelini A, Abati CN,
Ruggieri P. Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2015;473:891–9.
6. Lee SY, Jeon DG, Cho WH, Song WS, Kim BS.Are
pasteurized autografts durable for reconstructions
after bone tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2018;476:1728–37.
7. Araki Y, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi A,
Miwa S, Igarashi K, Higuchi T, Abe K, Taniguchi Y,
Yonezawa H, etal. Clinical outcomes of frozen autograft reconstruction for the treatment of primary bone
sarcoma in adolescents and young adults. Sci Rep.
2021;11:17291.
8. Severyns M, Briand S, Waast D, Touchais S, Hamel A,
Gouin F. Postoperative infections after limb- sparing
surgery for primary bone tumors of the pelvis: incidence, characterization and functional impact. Surg
Oncol. 2017;26:171–7.
9. Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, Carter SR, Sneath
RS.Reconstruction of the hemipelvis after the excision of malignant tumours. Complications and functional outcome of prostheses. J Bone Jt Surg Br.
1997;79:773–9.
10. Jaiswal, P.K.; Aston,W.J.; Grimer, R.J.; Abudu, A.;
Carter, S.; Blunn, G.; Briggs, T.W.; Cannon, S.Periacetabular resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the acetabulum. J Bone Jt Surg Br
2008, 90, 1222–1227.
11. Aljassir F, Beadel GP, Turcotte RE, Grifn AM, Bell
RS, Wunder JS, Isler MH.Outcome after pelvic sarcoma resection reconstructed with saddle prosthesis.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:36–41.
12. Cottias P, Jeanrot C, Vinh TS, Tomeno B, Anract
P.Complications and functional evaluation of 17 saddle prostheses for resection of periacetabular tumors.
J Surg Oncol. 2001;78:90–100.
13. Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Bettin D, Wuisman P,
Winkelmann W.High complication rates with pelvic
allografts. Experience of 22 sarcoma resections. Acta
Orthop Scand. 1996;67:333–8.
14. Guo,W.; Li, D.; Tang, X.; Ji, T.Surgical treatment of
pelvic chondrosarcoma involving periacetabulum. J
Surg Oncol 2010, 101, 160–165.
15. Ham SJ, Schraffordt Koops H, Veth RPH, van Horn
JR, Eisma WH, Hoekstra HJ.External and internal
hemipelvectomy for sarcomas of the pelvic girdle:
consequences of limb-salvage treatment. Eur J Surg
Oncol (EJSO). 1997;23:540–6.
16. Miwa S, Shirai T, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi
A, Tada K, Kajino Y, Higuchi T, Abe K, Aiba H, etal.
Risk factors for surgical site infection after malignant bone tumor resection and reconstruction. BMC
Cancer. 2019;19:33.
17. Angelini A, Drago G, Trovarelli G, Calabro T,
Ruggieri P.Infection after surgical resection for pelvic bone tumors: an analysis of 270 patients from one
institution. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:349–59.
18. Fujiwara T, Ogura K, Christ A, Bartelstein M, Kenan
S, Fabbri N, Healey J.Periacetabular reconstruction
following limb-salvage surgery for pelvic sarcomas. J
Bone Oncol. 2021;31:100396.
19. Wu, J.; Xie, K.; Luo, D.;Wang, L.;Wu,W.; Yan, M.;
Ai, S.; Dai, K.; Hao, Y.Three-dimensional printingbased personalized limb salvage and reconstruction
treatment of pelvic tumors. J Surg Oncol 2021, 124,
420–430.
20. Trovarelli G, Angelini A, Pala E, Cappellari A, Breda
A, Ruggieri P.Infection in orthopaedic oncology: crucial problem in modern reconstructive techniques. Eur
Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(2 Suppl):271–8.
21. Anatone AJ, Danford NC, Jang ES, Smartt A,
Konigsberg M, Tyler WK.Risk factors for surgical
site infection in orthopaedic oncology. J Am Acad
Orthop Surg. 2020;28(20):e923–8.
22. Gradl G, de Witte PB, Evans BT, Hornicek F, Raskin
K, Ring D. Surgical site infection in orthopaedic
oncology. JBJS. 2014;96(3):223–30.
23. Miwa S, Shirai T, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi
A, Tada K, Kajino Y, Inatani H, Higuchi T, Abe K,
etal. Risk factors for postoperative deep infection in
bone tumors. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0187438.
24. Morris CD, Sepkowitz K, Fonshell C, Margetson N,
Eagan J, Miransky J, Boland PJ, Healey J.Prospective
identication of risk factors for wound infection after
lower extremity oncologic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol.
2003;10:778–82.
25. Anaya DA, Cormier JN, Xing Y, Koller P, Gaido L,
Hadeld D, Chemaly RF, Feig BW.Development and
validation of a novel stratication tool for identifying
cancer patients at increased risk of surgical site infection. Ann Surg. 2012;255:134–9.

412
A. Crimì et al.
26. Lozano-Calderon SA, Swaim SO, Federico A,
Anderson ME, Gebhardt MC.Predictors of soft- tissue
complications and deep infection in allograft reconstruction of the proximal tibia. J Surg Oncol.
2016;113:811–7.
27. Langit MB, Miwa S, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K,
Takeuchi A, Igarashi K, Tada K, Higuchi T, Yonezawa
H, Morinaga S, etal. Risk factors for postoperative
deep infection after malignant bone tumor surgery of
the extremities. Anticancer Res. 2020;40:3551–7.
28. Fujiwara T, Ebihara T, Kitade K, Setsu N, Endo M,
Iida K, Matsumoto Y, Matsunobu T, Oda Y, Iwamoto
Y, et al. Risk factors of Periprosthetic infection in
patients with tumor prostheses following resection for
musculoskeletal tumor of the lower limb. J Clin Med.
2020;9:3133.
29. Miwa S, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi A,
Igarashi K, Tsuchiya H.Surgical site infection after
bone tumor surgery: risk factors and new preventive
techniques. Cancer. 2022;14(18):4527.
30. Farhan-Alanie OM, Ha TT, Doonan J, Mahendra A,
Gupta S. Inammatory prognostic scoring systems
are risk factors for surgical site infection following wide local excision of soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J
Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021;32:1–9.
31. Miyamoto S, Fujiki M, Nakatani F, Kobayashi E,
Sakisaka M, Sakuraba M.Reconstruction of complex
groin defects after sarcoma resection. Ann Plast Surg.
2017;78(4):443–7.
32. Angelini A, Tiengo C, Cerchiaro MC, Soto F, Biz
C, Messana F, et al. Ortho-oncoplastic surgery in
foot and ankle: a narrative overview on reconstruction of soft-tissue defects after oncologic resections.
Microsurgery. 2024;44(4):e31168.
33. Morii T, Mochizuki K, Tajima T, Ichimura S, Satomi
K. Surgical site infection in malignant soft tissue
tumors. J Orthop Sci. 2012;17:51–7.
34. Perrault DP, Lee GK, Roy PY, Carre AL, Chattha A,
Johnson MB, etal. Risk factors for wound complications after soft tissue sarcoma resection. Ann Plast
Surg. 2021;86(3S):S336–41.
35. Bensaid S, Contejean A, Morand P, Enser M,
Eyrolle L, Charlier C, et al. Surgical site infection
after pelvic bone and soft tissue sarcoma resection:
risk factors, microbiology, and impact of extended
postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. J Surg Oncol.
2023;128(2):344–9.
36. Cannon CP, Ballo MT, Zagars GK, Mirza AN, Lin PP,
Lewis VO, etal. Complications of combined modality treatment of primary lower extremity soft-tissue
sarcomas. Cancer. 2006;107(10):2455–61.
37. Bisson-Patoué A, Bourdais-Sallot A, Janoray G,
Rosset P, Samargandi R, Le Nail LR.Factors associated with complications after resection of soft tissue
sarcomas of the groin. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.
2022;108(4):103158.
38. Pagnoni C, Zoccali G, di Uccio AS, Sperati F, Favale
L, Valeri S, etal. Soft tissue sarcomas of the proximal
adductor area of the thigh: indications, results and
complications at medium follow-up in a series of 43
surgically treated patients. J Orthop. 2024;58:16.
39. Tsuda Y, Fujiwara T, Evans S, Kaneuchi Y, Abudu
A. Extra-articular resection of shoulder joint for
bone sarcomas: oncologic and limb-salvage outcomes of 32 cases compared with shoulder disarticulation and forequarter amputation. J Surg Oncol.
2020;121(4):612–9.
40. Mayil Vahanan N, Mohanlal P, Bose JC, Gangadharan
R, Karthisundar V. The functional and oncological results after scapulectomy for scapular tumours:
2–16-year results. Int Orthop. 2007;31:831–6.
41. Voggenreiter G, Assenmacher S, Schmit-Neuerburg
KP. Tikhoff- Linberg procedure for bone and soft
tissue tumors of the shoulder girdle. Arch Surg.
1999;134:252–7.
42. Angelini A, Mavrogenis AF, Trovarelli G, etal. Extraarticular shoulder resections: outcomes of 54 patients.
J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26:e337–45.
43. Xie L, Tang XD, Yang RL, Guo W.Interscapulothoracic
resection of tumours of shoulder with a note on reconstruction. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(5):684–90.
44. Pritsch T, Bickels J, Wu CC, Squires MH, Malawer
MM. Is scapular endoprosthesis functionally superior to humeral suspension? Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2007;1976-2007(456):188–95.
45. Capanna R, van Horn JR, Biagini R, etal. The TikhoffLinberg procedure for bone tumors of the proximal
humerus: the classical “extensive” technique versus
a modied “transglenoid” resection. Arch Orthop
Trauma Surg. 1990;109:63–7.
46. Yu XJ, Liu QK, Wang YG, Wang SX, Lu R, Xu HR,
et al. Oncologic and functional outcomes of different reconstruction modalities after resection of
chondrosarcoma of the scapula: a medium-to longterm follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.
2022;23(1):758.
47. Dieckmann R, Gebert C, Streitbürger A, Henrichs
MP, Dirksen U, Rödl R, etal. Proximal bula resection in the treatment of bone tumours. Int Orthop.
2011;35:1689–94.
48. Dieckmann R, Ahrens H, Streitbürger A, Budny TB,
Henrichs MP, Vieth V, etal. Reconstruction after wide
resection of the entire distal bula in malignant bone
tumours. Int Orthop. 2011;35:87–92.
49. Capanna R, van Horn JR, Biagini R, Ruggieri
P, Bettelli G, Campanacci M. Reconstruction
after resection of the distal bula for bone tumor.
Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57:290–4. https://doi.
org/10.3109/17453678608994394.
50. Wang J, Du Z, Yang R, Tang X, Guo W.Lateral malleolus en bloc resection for the distal bula osteosarcoma
based on a new classication and proposed reconstruction choice: analysis of 6 cases prognosis and
literature review. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26:855–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2019.11.003.
51. Kiyokawa K, Tanaka S, Kiduka Y, Inoue Y,
Yamauchi T, Tai Y. Reconstruction of the form
and function of lateral malleolus and ankle joint.

28 Infections inOrthopedic Oncology
413
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2005;21:371–6. https://doi.
org/10.1055/s- 2005- 915204.
52. Angelini A, Bohacek I, Plecko M, Biz C, Trovarelli
G, Cerchiaro M, et al. Reconstructive surgery after
distal bular resection due to bone tumors: a technical report on surgical strategies and results from
the PROSPERO international register of systematic
reviews. EFORT Open Rev. 2024;9(6):503–16.
53. Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo LD,
Farfalli GL.What are the risk factors and management options for infection after reconstruction with
massive bone allografts? Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2016;474(3):669–73.
54. Lozano-Calderón SA, Swaim SO, Federico A,
Anderson ME, Gebhardt MC. Predictors of softtissue complications and deep infection in allograft
reconstruction of the proximal tibia. J Surg Oncol.
2016;113(7):811–7.
55. Witso E, Persen L, Benum P, Bergh K. Cortical
allograft as a vehicle for antibiotic delivery. Acta
Orthop. 2005;76:481–6.
56. Ketonis C, et al. Bacterial colonization of bone
allograft. Establishment and effect of antibiotics. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(8):2113–21.
57. Mankin H, Doppelt S, Tomford W. Clinical experience with allograft implantation. The rst ten years.
Clin Orthop. 1983;174:69–86.
58. Fricdlaender GE, Toss RE, Doganis AC, Kirkwood
JM, Barron R.Effects of cheinothcrapculic agents on
bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(4):602–7.
59. Lord CF, Gebhardt MC, Tomford WW, Mankin
HJ.Infection in bone allografts. Incidence, nature, and
treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:369–76.
60. Kapoor SK, Thiyam R. Management of infection
following reconstruction in bone tumors. J Clin
Orthopaed Trauma. 2015;6(4):244–51.
61. Dick HM, Strauch RJ. Infection of massive bone allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
1994;306(September):46–53.
62. Degroot H, Donati D, Di Liddo M, Gozzi E, Mercuri
M.The use of cement in osteoarticular allografts for
proximal humerus bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 2004;427:190–7.
63. Ortiz-Cruz E, Gebhardt MC, Jennings LC, Springeld
DS, Mankin HJ. The results of transplantation of
intercalary allografts after resection of tumors.
Long term follow up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
1997;79-A:97–106.
64. Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ, Raskin KA. Infection
in massive bone allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res
(1976–2007). 2005;(432):210–6.
65. Sukpanichyingyong S, Poosiripinyo T, Salang K,
Simsin S. Impact of antibiotic-loaded bone cement
prophylaxis on infection rates after curettage and
cementation for bone tumor. J Orthopaed Rep.
2024;3(4):100331.
66. Smolle MA, Roessl V, Leithner A. Effect of local
adjuvants following curettage of benign and intermediate tumours of bone: a systematic review of the
literature. Cancer. 2023;15(17):4258.
67. Gava NF, Engel EE. Treatment alternatives and
clinical outcomes of bone lling after benign tumour
curettage. A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol
Surg Res. 2022;108(4):102966.
68. Seth I, Bulloch G, Lim B, Xie Y, Seth N, Rozen WM,
Ng SKH. Evaluating extended curettage and adjuvant therapy against wide resection and reconstruction in the management of distal radius giant cell
tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hand.
2024;15589447241245736
69. Enneking WF. Pelvis. In: Enneking WF, editor.
Musculoskeletal tumor surgery. NewYork: ChurchillLivingstone; 1983. p.483–90.
70. Satcher RL Jr, O’Donnell RJ, Johnston
JO. Reconstruction of the pelvis after resection of
tumors about the acetabulum. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2003;409:209–17.
71. Aboulaa AJ, Buch R, Mathews J, Li W, Malawer
MM.Reconstruction using the saddle prosthesis following excision of primary and metastatic periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;314:203–13.
72. Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, Carter SR, Sneath
RS.Reconstruction of the hemipelvis after the excision of malignant tumours: complications and functional outcome of prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
1997;79:773–9.
73. Biau D, The’venin F, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Tomeno
B, Anract P.Ipsilateral femoral autograft reconstruction after resection of a pelvic tumor. J Bone Joint
Surg Am. 2009;91:142–51.
74. Capanna R, van Horn JR, Guernelli N, Briccoli
A, Ruggieri P, Biagini R, Bettelli G, Campanacci
M.Complications of pelvic resections. Arch Orthop
Trauma Surg. 1987;106:71–7.
75. Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, Docquier PL, Cornu
O. Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic
allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:579–87.
76. Gebert C, Wessling M, Hoffmann C, Roedl R,
Winkelmann W, Gosheger G, Hardes J.Hip transposition as a limb salvage procedure following the
resection of periacetabular tumors. J Surg Oncol.
2011;103:269–75.
77. Guo W, Li D, Tang X, Yang Y, Ji T.Reconstruction
with modular hemipelvic prostheses for periacetabular tumor. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:180–8.
78. Harrington KD.The use of hemipelvic allografts or
autoclaved grafts for reconstruction after wide resections of malignant tumors of the pelvis. J Bone Joint
Surg Am. 1992;74:331–41.
79. Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Rodl R,
Winkelmann W, Ozaki T.Tumors of the pelvis: complications after reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma
Surg. 2003;123:340–4.
80. Laffosse JM, Pourcel A, Reina N, Tricoire JL,
Bonnevialle P, Chiron P, Puget J.Primary tumor of the
periacetabular region: resection and reconstruction
using a segmental ipsilateral femur autograft. Orthop
Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:309–18.

414
A. Crimì et al.
81. Langlais F, Lambotte JC, Thomazeau H. Long-term
results of hemipelvis reconstruction with allografts.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:178–86.
82. Ozaki T, Hoffmann C, Hillmann A, Gosheger G,
Lindner N, Winkelmann W.Implantation of hemipelvic prosthesis after resection of sarcoma. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 2002;396:197–205.
83. Puri A, Gulia A, Jambhekar NA, Laskar S.Results of
surgical resection in pelvic Ewing’s sarcoma. J Surg
Oncol. 2012;106:417–22.
84. Rodl RW, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Leidinger B,
Jurgens H, Winkelmann W.Ewing’s sarcoma of the
pelvis: combined surgery and radiotherapy treatment.
J Surg Oncol. 2003;83:154–60.
85. Schwameis E, Dominkus M, Krepler P, Dorotka R,
Lang S, Windhager R, Kotz R.Reconstruction of the
pelvis after tumor resection in children and adolescents. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;402:220–35.
86. Windhager R, Karner J, Kutschera HP, Polterauer P,
Salzer-Kuntschik M, Kotz R.Limb salvage in periacetabular sarcomas: review of 21 consecutive cases.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:265–76.
87. Wirbel RJ, Schulte M, Maier B, Mutschler
WE.Megaprosthetic replacement of the pelvis: function in 17 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:348–52.
88. Yoshida Y, Osaka S, Mankin HJ.Hemipelvic allograft
reconstruction after periacetabular bone tumor resection. J Orthop Sci 2000;5:198–204.sgs.
89. Zeifang F, Buchner M, Zahlten-Hinguranage A,
Bernd L, Sabo D.Complications following operative
treatment of primary malignant bone tumours in the
pelvis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:893–9.
90. Tiengo C, Monticelli A, Sonda R, Angelini A,
Ruggieri P, Bassetto F.Role of plastic surgery in the
treatment of pelvic tumors. In: Surgery of pelvic bone
tumors. Springer; 2021. p.225–32.
91. Zuckerman SL, Lee SH, Chang GJ, Walsh GL,
Mehran RJ, Gokaslan ZL, etal. Outcomes of surgery
for sacral chordoma and impact of complications: a
report of 50 consecutive patients with long-term follow- up. Global Spine J. 2021;11(5):740–50.
92. Marmouset D, Haseny B, Dukan R, Saint-Etienne A,
Missenard G, Court C, Bouthors C.Characteristics,
survivals and risk factors of surgical site infections
after En Bloc sacrectomy for primary malignant
sacral tumors at a single center. Orthop Traumatol
Surg Res. 2022;108(4):103197.
93. Ruggieri P, Angelini A, Pala E, Mercuri M.Infections
in surgery of primary tumors of the sacrum. Spine.
2012;37(5):420–8.
94. Varga PP, Szover Z, Fisher CG, etal. Surgical treatment of sacral chordoma: prognostic variables for
local recurrence and overall survival. Eur Spine J.
2015;24(5):1092–101.
95. Houdek MT, Rose PS, Hevesi M, Schwab JH,
Grifn AM, Healey JH, etal. Low dose radiotherapy is associated with local complications but not
disease control in sacral chordoma. J Surg Oncol.
2019;119(7):856–63.
96. Ji T, Guo W, Yang R, Tang X, Wang Y, Huang
L. What are the conditional survival and functional
outcomes after surgical treatment of 115 patients
with sacral chordoma? Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2017;475(3):620–30.
97. Kolz JM, Wellings EP, Houdek MT, Clarke MJ,
Yaszemski MJ, Rose PS. Surgical treatment of
primary mobile spine chordoma. J Surg Oncol.
2021;123(5):1284–91.
98. Schwab J, Healey J, Rose P, Casas-Ganem J, Boland
PJ.The surgical Management of Sacral Chordomas.
Spine. 2009;34(24):2700–4.

Infective Complications After Spinal Instrumentation
AndreaAngelini, GiovanniBaldin, RonBatash,
andPietroRuggieri
29
29.1 Introduction
Surgical site infection (SSI) is an uncommon
complication of spine surgery, but when it happens, it represents a huge challenge both for the
surgeon and the patient, with potentially catastrophic consequences if not treated quickly
[1–3]. In fact, patients with post-operative spine
infection require longer hospital lengths of stay,
have higher re-operation rates, and are put at high
risk of chronic pain, neurological complications,
pseudarthrosis that can lead to implant failure,
and even death if they involve the spinal cord.
Progress was made in reducing the risk of infection by adopting a standardized protocol in the
management of the patient both pre-, intra-, and
post-operative, and by better understanding of
risk factors. Early diagnosis and treatment are
mandatory to treat those kinds of complications.
29.2 Incidence andRisk Factors
The reported incidence of SSI ranges between 1
and 18% [4–7]. This wide range is due to the different variety present in spine surgery depending
on the surgical complexity and patient risk fac-
A. Angelini · G. Baldin · R. Batash · P. Ruggieri (*)
Department of Orthopedics and Orthopedic
Oncology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
e-mail: andrea.angelini@unipd.it; pietro.ruggieri@
unipd.it
tors, both concerning the type of operation and
the surgical approach. Conventionally the elements accountable for SSI are divided into two
main categories, the unchangeable (patientrelated) and changeable (procedure-related)
[8–11]. Patient’s related risk factors are age
(>65 years old), American Society of
Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, diabetes mellitus,
cardiovascular disease, obesity, smoking, steroid
use, nutritional status, and immunologic competence. Smoking and substance abuse negatively
impact wound healing and immune function, and
malnourished patients are 15 times more likely to
present SSI [12–16]. Procedure-related risk factors are linked to the duration of surgery, blood
loss, presence of instrumentation, and prolonged
preoperative hospital stay. Anterior approaches
have shown the least amount of postoperative
infection, meanwhile, the posterior lumbar
approach is the one with the greatest risk of infections. This is due to the proximity of the surgical
site with the anus and the genitourinary tract,
with a high risk of involuntary contamination
after the surgery [1, 17–19]. Also, it appears that
simpler operations without implants present a
lower incidence of SSI when compared with
major operations with instrumented fusion.
Those ndings are linked to the fact that major
surgery also means more blood loss, longer surgical time, and longer hospitalization of the patient.
The presence of instrumentation can provide bacteria (such as Staphylococcus species) with a
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
P. Ruggieri et al. (eds.), Bone and Joint Infections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-96383-4_29
415

416
A. Angelini et al.
suitable foreign surface for a polysaccharide biolm called “glycocalyx,” a barrier against antibiotics and the host immune system [20]. This
biolm makes infections difcult to eradicate.
29.3 Types ofSSI
The SSI’s type can be mainly divided into supercial SSI and deep SSI.Supercial SSI is limited
to the skin or the subcutaneous layers, meanwhile, deep SSI involves the muscular fascia or
even the paraspinal musculature; it can present
huge potential dangers when in proximity to the
spine cord and the neural elements. Thalgott
etal. [21] have described a classication based
not on the depth but on the severity of the infection and the patient’s immune system response.
The severity of infection was divided into three
groups: (1) supercial/deep infection caused by a
single germ; (2) deep infection caused by multiple germs; (3) deep infection with muscular
necrosis caused by multiple or drug-resistant
germs. The immune system response was categorized too into three subgroups: (1) normal general immune defenses, without vascular defects
or metabolic diseases; (2) general diffused infection or tumors; (3) malnourished or immunodecient patient.
Moreover, these infections are typically classied based on their timing: early (within
3months post-surgery), delayed (3 to 12months),
and late (more than 12months). Early infections
are often caused by more virulent organisms like
Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
Delayed and late infections are frequently associated with less virulent organisms, such as
coagulase- negative staphylococci [20, 22].
29.4 Diagnosis
Diagnosis usually made both by clinical and
radiological ndings considering that supercial
and deep SSI can have different characteristics.
While supercial SSI can be clinically evident
from the early stage, deep SSI can hide for a long
time showing just few general symptoms before
rapid worsening. Especially in those cases, early
diagnosis is crucial [10–11, 23]. The surgeon
should always use all the weapons at his disposal
to investigate the presence of SSI when suspected. Surgical site infection can be a difcult
task even for experienced surgeons, starting from
the diagnosis; an early diagnosis can signicantly
improve the outcome and simplify the management of the patient. The clinician should always
suspect an infection in a patient complaining of
excessive back pain after surgery and a pain-free
interval, especially if are also present other general signs like fever. There can also be more evident symptoms that can lead the examiner to the
suspicion of SSI, like wound dehiscence or
necrosis and the presence of purulent material on
the surgical site [24].
Usually, supercial SSI shows early local redness, swollen skin, and pain, with local secretion,
meanwhile deep SSI can be more difcult to
diagnose due to low to no local symptoms. When
they become clear they show local pain and can
have general symptoms like fever [25–26]. First
of all, draw multiple blood cultures during fever
and take additional laboratory tests. In SSI those
present elevated white blood cell (WBC),
increased C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocytes sedimentation rate (ESR).
Polymorphonuclear cells increase is an important
indication of infection, and should always be
monitored for some days after surgery. ESR tends
to increase right after surgery (with peak in about
4–5days), but should go back to normal value by
14days; a tendency to a high value of ESR is suggestive of SSI.The CRP value usually peaks in
few days after surgery and decreases more rapidly than ESR.Progression of the CRP value or
persistently elevated value is a valid indicator or
SSI [27–30]. After the rst line of blood exams,
radiological imaging has a pivotal role in the
diagnosis. Plain radiographs do not provide relevant information, especially in early infections
because bacteria had no time to alter the bone or
implant. Meanwhile, in case of late infection, an
X-ray can show bone lysis or lytic areas around
the instrumentation [31]. Ultrasound can be used
to investigate the presence of hematoma in early
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
