OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice.
METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC.
RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care.
METHODS: This multicentric multinational retrospective study, includes 24 countries from five different regions (Asia Pacific, South Eastern Africa, Western Africa, Latin America, and Middle East). Patients who developed orthopedic surgical site infection between January 2021 and December 2022 were included. Demographic details, bacterial profile of surgical site infection, and antibiotic sensitivity pattern were documented.
RESULTS: 2038 patients from 24 countries were included. Among them 69.7 % were male patients and 64.1 % were between 20 and 60 years. 70.3 % patients underwent trauma surgery and instrumentation was used in 93.5 %. Ceftriaxone was the most common preferred in 53.4 %. Early SSI was seen in 55.2 % and deep SSI in 59.7 %. Western Africa (76 %) and Asia-Pacific (52.8 %) reported a higher number of gram-negative infections whereas gram-positive organisms were predominant in other regions. Most common gram positive organism was Staphylococcus aureus (35 %) and gram-negative was Klebsiella (17.2 %). Majority of the organisms showed variable sensitivity to broad-spectrum antibiotics.
CONCLUSION: Our study strongly proves that every institution has to analyse their surgical site infection microbiological profile and antibiotic sensitivity of the organisms and plan their surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis accordingly. This will help to decrease the rate of surgical site infection, prevent the emergence of multidrug resistance and reduce the economic burden of treatment.