Preoperative skin preparation is an effective method to prevent surgical site infections (SSI). Alcoholic chlorhexidine (CHG) and povidone iodine (PV-I) are the most widely used antiseptic agents. This meta-analysis aims to determine their efficacy in reducing natural bacterial skin flora in clean orthopedic surgery. A systematic search was conducted through current literature up to June 2021 to identify clinical randomized trials that compared the efficacy of alcoholic chlorhexidine and povidone iodine in reducing bacterial skin colonization after preoperative skin preparation. A meta-analysis was conducted. Of 235 screened articles, 8 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate a significantly lower positive culture rate in the chlorhexidine group than in the povidone iodine group (RR = 0.53, 95% Cl: 0.32–0.88). The present data show the superiority of chlorhexidine in reducing the normal bacterial flora compared to povidone iodine in clean orthopedic surgery.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in the therapeutic effectiveness of CT-assisted infiltration of a local anesthetic + corticosteroid between nerve root and facet joint capsule in patients with chronic complaints. In this prospective trial with a 12-month follow-up, a total of 250 patients with chronic low back pain and radiculopathy were assigned to two groups. In the first group, patients with specific lumbar pain due to spondyloarthritis received periarticular facet joint capsule infiltration (FJI). In the second group, patients with monoradicular pain received periradicular infiltration (PRI) via an extraforaminal selective nerve block. Clinical improvement after FJI and PRI regarding pain (NRS), function (ODI), satisfaction (McNab), and health related quality of life (SF-36) were compared. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) served as the threshold for therapeutic effectiveness evaluation. A total of 196 patients were available for final analysis. With respect to the pain reduction and functional improvement (ODI, NRSoverall, and NRSback), the PRI group performed significantly better (ptreatment < 0.001) and longer over time (ptreatment × time 0.001) than the FJI group. Regarding pain and function, only PRI demonstrated a durable improvement larger than MCID. A significant and durable therapeutic value was found only after receiving PRI but not after FJI in patients with chronic pain.

This study investigates the advantages and disadvantages of cone-beam-based navigated standardized posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIF), regarding the radiation exposure and perioperative time management, compared to the use of fluoroscopy. Patients treated receiving an elective one- to three-level PLIF were retrospectively enrolled in the study. The surgery time, preparation time, operation room time, and effective dose (mSv) were analyzed for comparison of the radiation exposure and time consumption between cone-beam and fluoroscopy; Results: 214 patients were included (108 cone-beam navigated, and 106 traditional fluoroscopies). Using cone-beam navigation, reductions in the effective dose (2.23 ± 1.96 mSv vs. 3.39 ± 2.32 mSv, p = 0.002) and mean surgery time of 30 min (143.62 ± 43.87 min vs. 171.10 ± 48.91 min, p < 0.001) were demonstrated, which leveled out the extended preparation time of 7–8 min (37.25 ± 9.99 min vs. 29.65 ± 7.69 min, p < 0.001). These effects were fusion length dependent and demonstrated additional benefits in multisegmental surgeries. The cone-beam navigation system led to a reduction in the perioperative time requirements and radiation exposure. Furthermore, the controversially discussed longer preparation time when using cone-beam navigation was amortized by a shortened surgery time, especially in multilevel surgery.

Purpose This retrospective cohort study investigated the efficacy of a sublingual sufentanil tablet system (SSTS) in comparison to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with piritramide for the management of postoperative pain following lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing single- or two-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery and receiving the SSTS or IV-PCA for postoperative pain relief as part of multimodal pain management that included IV paracetamol and oral metamizole. The following variables were collected: postoperative pain intensity and frequency scores using the numerical rating scale (NRS), hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), occurrence of nausea, postoperative mobilization, and patient satisfaction (MacNab criteria). Results Sixty-four patients were included. Those receiving the SSTS (n = 30) had significantly lower pain intensities on the operative day (NRS: 4.0, CI: 3.6–4.3 vs. 4.5, CI: 4.2–4.9; p < 0.05) and one day postoperatively (NRS: 3.4, CI: 3.1–3.8 vs. 3.9 CI: 3.6–4.3; p < 0.05) compared to patients receiving IV-PCA (n = 34). No differences were observed on postoperative days 2 to 5. SSTS patients experienced more nausea than IV-PCA patients (p = 0.027). Moreover, SSTS patients had a higher percentage of early mobilization following surgery than IV-PCA patients (p = 0.040). Regarding patient satisfaction, no significant differences were seen between the groups. Conclusion The SSTS is a potentially advantageous alternative to opioid IV-PCA for use within a multimodal approach to managing postoperative pain after lumbar fusion surgery. Furthermore, the potentially higher emetic effect of SSTS should be considered, and the patient should be able to perform the application.