Percutaneous Endoscopic Interbody Debridement and Fusion for Pyogenic Lumbar Spondylodiskitis: Surgical Technique and the Comparison With Percutaneous Endoscopic Drainage and Debridement

Effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage for spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal infections (SI) typically manifest with and pose a growing medical challenge. However, current evidence for treating SI is limited and inconclusive. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic disc decompression (PEDD) for SI.

METHODS

On 20 October 2023, we searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases for eligible studies. Cohort studies on SI treated with PEDD, reporting relevant effectiveness or safety outcomes. We assessed study quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled results.

RESULTS

Overall, 36 studies involving 925 patients were included. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels decreased significantly at 1-week postoperatively compared with preoperative levels (mean difference [MD] = - 13.48 [95% CI - 15.65 to - 11.31]) and continued to decrease over 3 months. Similarly, the c-reactive protein (CRP), visual analogue scale, and oswestry disability index scores significantly reduced postoperatively. The rates of excellent or good MacNab classification were 92.6% (95% CI 84.1-98.1%). Microbiological diagnostics revealed a 71.7% (95% CI 65.5-77.6%) positive rate in tissue cultures, surpassing blood cultures (odds ratio [OR] 2.72 [95% CI 1.01-7.30]). The rates of complication, reoperation, and mortality were 4.1% (95% CI 1.5-8.0%), 8.6% (95% CI 4.3-14.3%), and 1.7% (95% CI 0.4-4.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly lower reoperation rate in the group that discontinued antibiotics based on a normal CRP than in the fixed-duration group (2.7% [95% CI 0.3-7.7%] vs 20.1% [95% CI 14.5-26.3%], p = 0.0002). Conversely, ambulation 1 day postoperatively was associated with a higher reoperation rate than ambulation within 5-14 days (16.2% [95% CI 9.3-24.6%] vs 1.1% [95% CI 0.0-6.0%], p = 0.0060).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that PEDD is a potentially effective and safe intervention for SI. Optimizing antibiotic discontinuation and postoperative care strategies may contribute to reducing reoperation rate. However, these findings require further validation from controlled studies.

Endoscopic Treatment of Thoracolumbar Spondylodiscitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to relieve intradiscal pressure, irrigation of inflammatory factors, and visual debridement, which are crucial for the successful treatment of spondylodiscitis. This study proposes a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic treatment of thoracolumbar spondylodiscitis.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for studies involving thoracolumbar spondylodiscitis treated by endoscopic disc drainage with or without additional posterior fixation over the last 20 years. Studies that met the inclusion criteria, which included outcomes related to the percentage of cured infections, patient satisfaction, regression of inflammatory markers, and/or the percentage of adverse event rates, were included in the analysis. For each study, the percentage of patients who showed improvement or experienced an adverse event was abstracted and pooled in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Based on the search strategy and inclusion criteria, our systematic review and meta-analysis included 20 studies with 546 participants. The success rate was 89.4% (95% CI 83.1%-94.5%). The rate of major adverse events was 0.3%, while that of postoperative transient paresthesia was 2.6% (95% CI 0.8%-5.1%). The recurrence rate was 1.7% (95% CI 0.3%-4.0%), and revision surgery was 8.5% (95% CI 3.8%-14.6%). The causative pathogen diagnosis rate was 73.9% (95% CI 67.7%-79.8%), while progression of deformity was 3.7% (95% CI 0.2%-9.8%), and spontaneous fusion was 40.1% (95% CI 11.0%-73.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic discectomy for thoracolumbar spondylodiscitis has been shown to be a safe technique with satisfactory clinical outcomes and a high causative pathogen identification rate.

Minimally Invasive versus Traditional Surgery: Efficacy of PELD and PLIF in Treating Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis

BACKGROUND Pyogenic spondylodiscitis is infection of the intervertebral disc or discs and the adjacent vertebrae. This retrospective study aimed to compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar debridement (PELD) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in 40 patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis (PSD). MATERIAL AND METHODS Medical records of patients who underwent PELD (n=18) or PLIF (n=22) for PSD between 2018 and 2023 were reviewed. The recorded outcomes encompassed surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) measurements, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) assessments, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, duration of hospitalization, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grading, lumbar sagittal parameters, and the incidence of complications. RESULTS The PELD group had shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter length of hospital stay compared to the PLIF group (P<0.01). At the last follow-up, both groups had significant improvement in ESR, CRP levels, and ASIA classification (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The PELD group had lower ODI and VAS ratings at 1 month and 3 months, respectively (P<0.01). The PLIF group had significant improvements in intervertebral space height and lumbar lordosis angle (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS Both PLIF and PELD surgical approaches demonstrate adequate clinical efficacy in the treatment of monosegmental PSD. PLIF can better ensure more spinal stability than PELD, but PELD offers advantages such as reduced minimal surgical trauma, shorter operative duration, and faster recovery after surgery.

The Need for Comprehensive Medical Management in Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis: A Review Article

The incidence of spontaneous or primary spondylodiscitis has been increasing over the years, affecting the aging population with multiple comorbidities. Several conditions influencing treatment outcomes stand out, such as diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, cardiovascular and respiratory dysfunction, and malnutrition. Due to these, the question arises regarding properly managing their current conditions and pre-existing disease states. Treatment plans must consider all concomitant comorbidities rather than just the infectious process. This can be done with the help of multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive care for patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis. To date, there is no article regarding comprehensive medicine for spontaneous pyogenic spondylodiscitis; hence, this paper reviews the evidence available in current literature, recognizes knowledge gaps, and suggests comprehensive care for treating patients with spinal infections. Pre-requisites for implementing multidisciplinary teams include leadership, administrative support, and team dynamics. This group comprises an appointed leader, coordinator, and different subspecialists, such as orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease specialists, internists, rehabilitation doctors, psychiatrists, microbiologists, radiologists, nutritionists, pharmacologists, nurses, and orthotists working together with mutual trust and respect. Employing collaborative teams allows faster time for diagnosis and improves clinical outcomes, better quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Forefront communication is clear and open between all team members to provide holistic patient care. With these in mind, the need for employing multidisciplinary teams and the feasibility of its implementation emerges, showing a promising and logical path toward providing comprehensive care in managing multimorbid patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis.

Hidden Blood Loss and Its Possible Risk Factors in Full Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Full endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) is a representative recent emerging minimally invasive operation. The hidden blood loss (HBL) in an Endo-LIF procedure and its possible risk factors are still unclear.

METHODS

The blood loss (TBL) was calculated by Gross formula. Sex, age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, ASA classification, fusion levels, surgical approach type, surgery time, preoperative RBC, HGB, Hct, PT, INR, APTT, Fg, postoperative mean arterial pressure, postoperative heart rate, Intraoperative blood loss (IBL), patient blood volume were included to investigate the possible risk factors by correlation analysis and multiple linear regression between variables and HBL.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (23 males, 73 females) who underwent Endo-LIF were retrospective analyzed in this study. The HBL was 240.11 (65.51, 460.31) mL (median [interquartile range]). Fusion levels (p = 0.002), age (p = 0.003), hypertension (p = 0.000), IBL (p = 0.012), PT (p = 0.016), preoperative HBG (p = 0.037) were the possible risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Fusion levels, younger age, hypertension, prolonged PT, preoperative HBG are possible risk factors of HBL in an Endo-LIF procedure. More attention should be paid especially in multi-level minimally invasive surgery. The increase of fusion levels will lead to a considerable HBL.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Interbody Debridement and Fusion (PEIDF) Decreases Risk of Sepsis and Mortality in Treating Infectious Spondylodiscitis for Patients with Poor Physical Status, a Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Postoperative immunosuppression is associated with blood loss and surgical trauma during surgery and subsequently predisposes patients to increased morbidity. Spine endoscopic surgery has been accepted as an effective surgical technique with less surgical trauma and less blood loss for the complication of infectious spondylodiscitis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether PEIDF could reduce the morbidity rates for patients with infectious spondylodiscitis. Methods: We launched a retrospective cohort study on the comparison of the perioperative prognosis between PEIDF and conventional open surgery for single-level lumbar infectious spondylodiscitis in patients with poor physical health (ASA ≥ 4) from 2014 to 2019. Results: Forty-four patients were included in this study. Fifteen of them underwent PEIDF, and the rest of the 29 patients were treated with open surgery. Less surgical blood loss (p < 0.001) and intraoperative transfusions (p < 0.001) with a better decline of CRP (p = 0.017) were statistically significant in patients receiving PEIDF. Patients undergoing conventional open surgery encountered more postoperative sepsis (p = 0.030), a higher qSOFA score (p = 0.044), and prolonged-time for CRP normalization (p = 0.001). Conclusions: PEIDF minimizes a poor postoperative outcome due to less surgical trauma, intraoperative blood loss, and the need for a blood transfusion.