LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Spine/Staph Nasal Screening Does Not Cut Surgical Site Infection Risk
Spine

Staph Nasal Screening Does Not Cut Surgical Site Infection Risk

September 9, 2021 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Staph Nasal Screening Does Not Cut Surgical Site Infection Risk
Source: Wikimedia Commons and SC National Guard
#totaljointarthroplastySecondary#methicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureus#mrsa

Despite the success of preop testing and decolonization for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in arthroplasty patients, the benefits of such interventions in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in spine surgery remains unclear.

In an effort to explore this issue as related to primary lumbar fusion, a team from the Harvard Combined Orthopedic Residency Program and the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) looked at adult patients undergoing primary instrumented lumbar fusions from January 2015 to December 2019. Their study, “Nasal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus does not reduce surgical site infection after primary lumbar fusion,” appears in the July 16, 2021, edition of The Spine Journal.

It’s not the nasal screening, it’s the patient.

Co-author Daniel Tolbert, M.D. of MGH told OTW, “We performed this study because our institutional culture was moving towards indiscriminate screening of patients, and we questioned that move as overly inclusive.”

The researchers collected data about MRSA testing that took place <90 days before surgery, mupirocin prescription <30 days before surgery, perioperative antibiotics, and the Elixhauser comorbidity index.

The research team enrolled 1,884 patients in the study, performed MRSA testing on 755 patients (40.1%) and were more likely to be performed in patients with lower Elixhauser index scores on multivariable analysis. The research team noted that vancomycin use increased significantly over time despite no change in mupirocin or incision and drainage rates. They also found that MRSA testing, mupirocin prescriptions, perioperative parenteral vancomycin use, and intrawound vancomycin powder use had no impact on incision and drainage rates. In fact, incision and drainage risk was more associated with higher BMI (body mass index) and a higher number of blood product units transfused.

Dr. Tobert summarized the study conclusions for OTW saying: “The findings from this paper underscore two points about infection prevention in spine surgery. The first is that indiscriminate nasal screening of spine patients does not lead to a decrease in surgical site infections. The second is that patient factors are the predominant determinate of surgical site infection.”

“MRSA nasal screens may impact surgical site infections for certain patients and certain procedures. However, for relatively low risk procedures like the cohort we studied it does not change the SSI rate. The implications are that MRSA nasal screening should likely be reserved for surgeries that have high risk for SSI.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy