Cargando…

Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection

BACKGROUND: The use of instrumentation in the setting of primary spinal infections is controversial. While the instrumentation is often required in the presence of progressive deformity due to spinal osteomyelitis (SO), discitis (SD), or spinal epidural abscesses (SEA), many surgeons are concerned a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw, Page, Paul S., Greeneway, Garret P., Brooks, Nathaniel P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Scientific Scholar 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9805636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36600743
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_1073_2022
_version_ 1784862371542466560
author Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw
Page, Paul S.
Greeneway, Garret P.
Brooks, Nathaniel P.
author_facet Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw
Page, Paul S.
Greeneway, Garret P.
Brooks, Nathaniel P.
author_sort Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The use of instrumentation in the setting of primary spinal infections is controversial. While the instrumentation is often required in the presence of progressive deformity due to spinal osteomyelitis (SO), discitis (SD), or spinal epidural abscesses (SEA), many surgeons are concerned about instrumentation increasing the risk of infection recurrence and/or persistence warranting reoperation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the need for reoperations for persistent infections in 119 patients who presented with primary spinal infections. They were treated with decompressions with/without non-instrumented fusion (70 patients) versus decompressions with instrumented fusions (49 patients). RESULTS: The use of primary spinal instrumentation in the presence of infection (SO/SD/SEA) did not increase the requirement for repeated surgery due to recurrent/residual infection when compared to those undergoing decompressions with/without non-instrumented fusions. Of 49 patients who initially required instrumentation, 6 (12.5%) required reoperations for recurrent or residual infection. For the 71 undergoing index decompressions for infection with/without non-instrumented fusion, 9 (12.7%), or nearly an identical percentage, required reoperations for recurrent/residual infection (P = 0.93). CONCLUSION: The use of instrumentation in the treatment of primary spinal infections in a small sample of just 49 patients did not increase the risk for persistent infection warranting reoperations versus 70 patients undergoing initial decompressions with/without non-instrumented fusions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9805636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Scientific Scholar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98056362023-01-03 Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw Page, Paul S. Greeneway, Garret P. Brooks, Nathaniel P. Surg Neurol Int Original Article BACKGROUND: The use of instrumentation in the setting of primary spinal infections is controversial. While the instrumentation is often required in the presence of progressive deformity due to spinal osteomyelitis (SO), discitis (SD), or spinal epidural abscesses (SEA), many surgeons are concerned about instrumentation increasing the risk of infection recurrence and/or persistence warranting reoperation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the need for reoperations for persistent infections in 119 patients who presented with primary spinal infections. They were treated with decompressions with/without non-instrumented fusion (70 patients) versus decompressions with instrumented fusions (49 patients). RESULTS: The use of primary spinal instrumentation in the presence of infection (SO/SD/SEA) did not increase the requirement for repeated surgery due to recurrent/residual infection when compared to those undergoing decompressions with/without non-instrumented fusions. Of 49 patients who initially required instrumentation, 6 (12.5%) required reoperations for recurrent or residual infection. For the 71 undergoing index decompressions for infection with/without non-instrumented fusion, 9 (12.7%), or nearly an identical percentage, required reoperations for recurrent/residual infection (P = 0.93). CONCLUSION: The use of instrumentation in the treatment of primary spinal infections in a small sample of just 49 patients did not increase the risk for persistent infection warranting reoperations versus 70 patients undergoing initial decompressions with/without non-instrumented fusions. Scientific Scholar 2022-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9805636/ /pubmed/36600743 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_1073_2022 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Surgical Neurology International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ammanuel, Simon Gashaw
Page, Paul S.
Greeneway, Garret P.
Brooks, Nathaniel P.
Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
title Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
title_full Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
title_fullStr Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
title_full_unstemmed Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
title_short Primary spinal infections: A retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
title_sort primary spinal infections: a retrospective review of instrumentation use and graft selection
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9805636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36600743
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_1073_2022
work_keys_str_mv AT ammanuelsimongashaw primaryspinalinfectionsaretrospectivereviewofinstrumentationuseandgraftselection
AT pagepauls primaryspinalinfectionsaretrospectivereviewofinstrumentationuseandgraftselection
AT greenewaygarretp primaryspinalinfectionsaretrospectivereviewofinstrumentationuseandgraftselection
AT brooksnathanielp primaryspinalinfectionsaretrospectivereviewofinstrumentationuseandgraftselection