Browse

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • By Author: Starke, Robert M. x
  • By Author: Ghobrial, George M. x
Clear All
Full access

George M. Ghobrial, Michael Y. Wang, Barth A. Green, Howard B. Levene, Glen Manzano, Steven Vanni, Robert M. Starke, George Jimsheleishvili, Kenneth M. Crandall, Marina Dididze and Allan D. Levi

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of 2 common preoperative surgical skin antiseptic agents, ChloraPrep and Betadine, in the reduction of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal surgery procedures.

METHODS

Two preoperative surgical skin antiseptic agents—ChloraPrep (2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol) and Betadine (7.5% povidone-iodine solution)—were prospectively compared across 2 consecutive time periods for all consecutive adult neurosurgical spine patients. The primary end point was the incidence of SSI.

RESULTS

A total of 6959 consecutive spinal surgery patients were identified from July 1, 2011, through August 31, 2015, with 4495 (64.6%) and 2464 (35.4%) patients treated at facilities 1 and 2, respectively. Sixty-nine (0.992%) SSIs were observed. There was no significant difference in the incidence of infection between patients prepared with Betadine (33 [1.036%] of 3185) and those prepared with ChloraPrep (36 [0.954%] of 3774; p = 0.728). Neither was there a significant difference in the incidence of infection in the patients treated at facility 1 (52 [1.157%] of 4495) versus facility 2 (17 [0.690%] of 2464; p = 0.06). Among the patients with SSI, the most common indication was degenerative disease (48 [69.6%] of 69). Fifty-one (74%) patients with SSI had undergone instrumented fusions in the index operation, and 38 (55%) patients with SSI had undergone revision surgeries. The incidence of SSI for minimally invasive and open surgery was 0.226% (2 of 885 cases) and 1.103% (67 of 6074 cases), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of either ChloraPrep or Betadine for preoperative skin antisepsis in spinal surgery had no significant impact on the incidence of postoperative SSI.

Restricted access

Nohra Chalouhi, Alex Whiting, Eliza C. Anderson, Samantha Witte, Mario Zanaty, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, L. Fernando Gonzalez, David Hasan, Robert M. Starke, Shannon Hann, George M. Ghobrial, Robert Rosenwasser and Pascal Jabbour

Object

It is common practice to use a new contralateral bur hole for ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) placement in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients with an existing ventriculostomy. At Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, the authors have primarily used the ventriculostomy site for the VPS. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of the 2 techniques in patients with SAH.

Methods

The rates of VPS-related hemorrhage, infection, and proximal revision were compared between the 2 techniques in 523 patients undergoing VPS placement (same site in 464 and contralateral site in 59 patients).

Results

The rate of new VPS-related hemorrhage was significantly higher in the contralateral-site group (1.7%) than in the same-site group (0%; p = 0.006). The rate of VPS infection did not differ between the 2 groups (6.4% for same site vs 5.1% for contralateral site; p = 0.7). In multivariate analysis, higher Hunt and Hess grades (p = 0.05) and open versus endovascular treatment (p = 0.04) predicted shunt infection, but the VPS technique was not a predictive factor (p = 0.9). The rate of proximal shunt revision was 6% in the same-site group versus 8.5% in the contralateralsite group (p = 0.4). In multivariate analysis, open surgery was the only factor predicting proximal VPS revision (p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the use of the ventriculostomy site for VPS placement may be feasible and safe and may not add morbidity (infection or need for revision) compared with the use of a fresh contralateral site. This rapid and simple technique also was associated with a lower risk of shunt-related hemorrhage. While both techniques appear to be feasible and safe, a definitive answer to the question of which technique is superior awaits a higher level of medical evidence.