Study Design. A prospective single center observational study. Objectives. The aim of this study was to examine the potential role of sonication in the diagnosis of low-grade infections and its association with pedicle screw (PS) loosening, and to describe risk factors and radiological findings associated with spinal implant infection. Summary of Background Data. Although PS loosening has mainly been attributed to mechanical overload, implant colonization and biofilm formation have recently been suggested. Culturing of sonication fluid implants is promising in the field of spine instrumentation infection, but little data are available. Methods. We prospectively included all patients who were subjected to implant removal. PS loosening was assessed with computed tomography (CT) scan. Different clinical and radiological parameters which could serve as indicators of implant infection were studied. Results. Thirty-eight patients were included in the study and 11 of them (29%) had a positive sonication result. Patients with spinal implant infection were associated with screw loosening (P= 0.005). Particularly, those screws with a positive microbiological culture showed signs of screw loosening in the preoperative CT scan (P< 0.001). Our results also showed that radiological screw loosening at L1-L3 level, and loosened larger constructs were associated with screw microbial colonization. The most common isolated microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci and Cutibacterium acnes. An implant-based multivariate analysis indicated that screw loosening, the absence of prophylactic cefazolin, ICU hospitalization, screw breakage, and L1-L3 spine level were independent risk factors for implant-associated infection. Our model exhibited a high predictive power with an area under the curve of 0.937. Conclusion. As clinical presentation of deep implant chronic infection is unspecific, consideration of these factors enables preoperative prediction and risk stratification of implant colonization, thus helping patient's management.

Study Design. Retrospective hospital-registry study. Objective. To characterize the microbial epidemiology of surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal fusion surgery and the burden of resistance to standard surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. Summary of Background Data. SSI persists as a leading complication of spinal fusion surgery despite the growth of enhanced recovery programs and improvements in other measures of surgical quality. Improved understandings of SSI microbiology and common mechanisms of failure for current prevention strategies are required to inform the development of novel approaches to prevention relevant to modern surgical practice. Methods. Spinal fusion cases performed at a single referral center between January 2011 and June 2019 were reviewed and SSI cases meeting National Healthcare Safety Network criteria were identified. Using microbiologic and procedural data from each case, we analyzed the anatomic distribution of pathogens, their differential time to presentation, and correlation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening results. Susceptibility of isolates cultured from each infection were compared with the spectrum of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administered during the index procedure on a per-case basis. Susceptibility to alternate prophylactic agents was also modeled. Results. Among 6727 cases, 351 infections occurred within 90 days. An anatomic gradient in the microbiology of SSI was observed across the length of the back, transitioning from cutaneous (gram-positive) flora in the cervical spine to enteric (gram-negative/anaerobic) flora in the lumbosacral region (correlation coefficient 0.94, P  < 0.001). The majority (57.5%) of infections were resistant to the prophylaxis administered during the procedure. Cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative infection was common at lumbosacral levels and undetected methicillin-resistance was common at cervical levels. Conclusion. Individualized infection prevention strategies tailored to operative level are needed in spine surgery. Endogenous wound contamination with enteric flora may be a common mechanism of infection in lumbosacral fusion. Novel approaches to prophylaxis and prevention should be prioritized in this population. Level of Evidence: 3

OBJECTIVE Currently, no consensus exists as to whether patients who develop infection of the surgical site after undergoing instrumented fusion should have their implants removed at the time of wound debridement. Instrumentation removal may eliminate a potential infection nidus, but removal may also destabilize the patient’s spine. The authors sought to summarize the existing evidence by systematically reviewing published studies that compare outcomes between patients undergoing wound washout and instrumentation removal with outcomes of patients undergoing wound washout alone. The primary objectives were to determine 1) whether instrumentation removal from an infected wound facilitates infection clearance and lowers morbidity, and 2) whether the chronicity of the underlying infection affects the decision to remove instrumentation. METHODS PRISMA guidelines were used to review the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify studies that compared patients with implants removed and patients with implants retained. Outcomes of interest included mortality, rate of repeat wound washout, and loss of correction. RESULTS Fifteen articles were included. Of 878 patients examined in these studies, 292 (33%) had instrumentation removed. Patient populations were highly heterogeneous, and outcome data were limited. Available data suggested that rates of reoperation, pseudarthrosis, and death were higher in patients who underwent instrumentation removal at the time of initial washout. Three studies recommended that instrumentation be uniformly removed at the time of wound washout. Five studies favored retaining the original instrumentation. Six studies favored retention in early infections but removal in late infections. CONCLUSIONS The data on this topic remain heterogeneous and low in quality. Retention may be preferred in the setting of early infection, when the risk of underlying spine instability is still high and the risk of mature biofilm formation on the implants is low. However, late infections likely favor instrumentation removal. Higher-quality evidence from large, multicenter, prospective studies is needed to reach generalizable conclusions capable of guiding clinical practice.