Unexpected positive culture (UPC) in adults revision spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, risk factors, and management

Peyman Mirghaderi; Hediye Gholamshahi; Ali Jahromi; Arad Iranmehr; Mohammad Amin Dabbagh-Ohadi; Nasim Eshraghi

doi:10.1007/s00586-024-08229-2

Unexpected positive culture (UPC) in adults revision spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, risk factors, and management

Eur Spine J. 2024 Apr 4. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08229-2. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Peyman Mirghaderi¹, Hediye Gholamshahi², Ali Jahromi², Arad Iranmehr³, Mohammad Amin Dabbagh-Ohadi^{2

4}, Nasim Eshraghi^{2

5}

Affiliations

¹ Surgical Research Society (SRS), Students' Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mirghaderi76@gmail.com.
² Surgical Research Society (SRS), Students' Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
³ Neurosurgery Department, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
⁴ Students' Scientific Research Center (SSRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
⁵ Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

PMID: 38573385
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08229-2

Abstract

Background: Without clear signs of infection, spinal implant failure is attributed to mechanical overloads and aseptic loosening. However, how low-grade infections contribute to seemingly aseptic implant failure is unclear.

Purpose: The systematic review examined unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) in revision spine surgery regarding prevalence, isolated pathogens, risk factors, and strategies to reduce infection among asymptomatic patients undergoing revision spine surgery.

Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines and searched four main databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science) comprehensively until January 2023 for articles reporting UPC after presumed aseptic adult revision spine surgery. The UPC rates were pooled, and risk factors were compared with the culture-negative control group and represented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD).

Results: Fifteen studies of 1057 individuals were included in two groups: culture-positive or UPCs (n = 317) and culture-negative or control (n = 740). The overall UPC prevalence was 33.2% (317/1057, range: 0 to 53%, 95% CI = 30.2%-36.4%), and Cutibacterium acnes (43.0%, 95% CI = 37.4%-48.8%), Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS), (39.5%, 95% CI = 33.2%-46.2%), and Staphylococcus species in general (49.5%, 95%CI = 43.7%-55.4%) were reported the most common isolated microbes. 16.1% of the UPCs were polymicrobial. Risk factors associated with UPC rates were female sex (OR = 2.62, 95%CI = 1.76-3.90, P < 0.001), screw loosening (OR = 4.43, 95%CI = 1.31-15.02, P = 0.02), number of operated levels (MD = 0.77, 95%CI = 0.33-1.22, P = 0.0007), and shorter time since index surgery (MD = - 8.57 months, 95%CI = - 14.76, -2.39, P = 0.02).

Conclusions: One-third of patients undergoing spine revision surgery revealed UPC in this study. Each UPC pathogen interpretation and antibiotic use decision should be interpreted case by case.

Level of evidence: IV.

Keywords: Cutibacterium acnes; Meta-analysis; Periprosthetic joint infection; Revision spine surgery; Unexpected positive cultures.

Publication types

Review