Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Background Data: Povidone-iodine is very effective broad spectrum antiseptic solution against different types of pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and some strains of Enterococcus faecium based on the antiseptic properties of iodine. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ahmad FA Allam, Tarek AA Abotakia, Mahmoud YI Farghally
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Egyptian Spine Association 2019
Materias:	Povidone-iodine 3.35% wound irrigation lumbar spine fusion Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e361d382caeb44d5b8c32da0bcc6e9ee
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e361d382caeb44d5b8c32da0bcc6e9ee
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e361d382caeb44d5b8c32da0bcc6e9ee2021-12-02T06:11:23ZPovidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study10.21608/esj.2019.5477.10692314-89502314-8969https://doaj.org/article/e361d382caeb44d5b8c32da0bcc6e9ee2019-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://esj.journals.ekb.eg/article_43554_37a7304c3b026dadaa97bdd28ff5b92e.pdfhttps://doaj.org/toc/2314-8950https://doaj.org/toc/2314-8969Background Data: Povidone-iodine is very effective broad spectrum antiseptic solution against different types of pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and some strains of Enterococcus faecium based on the antiseptic properties of iodine. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of intraoperative 3.35 % povidone-iodine irrigation in lumbar spine fusion surgeries. Study Design: Retrospective clinical case study. Patients and Methods: 93 spine fusion surgeries in 2016 (Group I) and 112 fusion surgeries in 2017 (Group II). Both groups were retrospectively compared regarding infection rate, fusion rate, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Group I had intraoperative saline irrigation and Group II was irrigated with 3.35 % povidone-iodine. Results: There were no reported infections in Group II. Two superficial and two deep wound infections were observed in Group I. Complete wound dehiscence was found in one patient with deep wound infection. The pathogens were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in two cases, Klebsiella pneumonia in one case, and combination of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis in the last case. There was insignificant difference between the two groups in fusion rates and with no linear correlation relationship between povidone-iodine soaking time and the fusion rate in Group II. There was significant postoperative ODI improvement in the two groups relative to the preoperative scores with insignificant statistical difference when comparing this improvement of the two groups. Conclusion: Povidone-iodine 3.35% irrigation in lumbar spine fusion surgery is effective in decreasing postoperative infection with no negative influence on the fusion rate or clinical outcome. (2019ESJ177) Ahmad FA Allam Tarek AA Abotakia Mahmoud YI Farghally Egyptian Spine AssociationarticlePovidone-iodine 3.35%wound irrigationlumbar spine fusionNeurology. Diseases of the nervous systemRC346-429ENEgyptian Spine Journal, Vol 30, Iss 1, Pp 48-56 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Povidone-iodine 3.35% wound irrigation lumbar spine fusion Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429
spellingShingle	Povidone-iodine 3.35% wound irrigation lumbar spine fusion Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system RC346-429 Ahmad FA Allam Tarek AA Abotakia Mahmoud YI Farghally Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study
description	Background Data: Povidone-iodine is very effective broad spectrum antiseptic solution against different types of pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and some strains of Enterococcus faecium based on the antiseptic properties of iodine. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of intraoperative 3.35 % povidone-iodine irrigation in lumbar spine fusion surgeries. Study Design: Retrospective clinical case study. Patients and Methods: 93 spine fusion surgeries in 2016 (Group I) and 112 fusion surgeries in 2017 (Group II). Both groups were retrospectively compared regarding infection rate, fusion rate, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Group I had intraoperative saline irrigation and Group II was irrigated with 3.35 % povidone-iodine. Results: There were no reported infections in Group II. Two superficial and two deep wound infections were observed in Group I. Complete wound dehiscence was found in one patient with deep wound infection. The pathogens were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in two cases, Klebsiella pneumonia in one case, and combination of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis in the last case. There was insignificant difference between the two groups in fusion rates and with no linear correlation relationship between povidone-iodine soaking time and the fusion rate in Group II. There was significant postoperative ODI improvement in the two groups relative to the preoperative scores with insignificant statistical difference when comparing this improvement of the two groups. Conclusion: Povidone-iodine 3.35% irrigation in lumbar spine fusion surgery is effective in decreasing postoperative infection with no negative influence on the fusion rate or clinical outcome. (2019ESJ177)
format	article
author	Ahmad FA Allam Tarek AA Abotakia Mahmoud YI Farghally
author_facet	Ahmad FA Allam Tarek AA Abotakia Mahmoud YI Farghally
author_sort	Ahmad FA Allam
title	Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study
title_short	Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study
title_full	Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr	Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed	Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study
title_sort	povidone-iodine 3.35% solution versus normal saline for irrigation in lumbar fusion surgery: a retrospective study
publisher	Egyptian Spine Association
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/e361d382caeb44d5b8c32da0bcc6e9ee
work_keys_str_mv	AT ahmadfaallam povidoneiodine335solutionversusnormalsalineforirrigationinlumbarfusionsurgeryaretrospectivestudy AT tarekaaabotakia povidoneiodine335solutionversusnormalsalineforirrigationinlumbarfusionsurgeryaretrospectivestudy AT mahmoudyifarghally povidoneiodine335solutionversusnormalsalineforirrigationinlumbarfusionsurgeryaretrospectivestudy
_version_	1718400082221465600

Povidone-Iodine 3.35% Solution versus Normal Saline for Irrigation in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Ejemplares similares