Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleLumbar Spine

The Role of Instrumentation in the Surgical Treatment of Spondylodiscitis and Spinal Epidural Abscess: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Jonathan J. Lee, Saeed S. Sadrameli, Suraj Sulhan, Virendra R. Desai, Marcus Wong and Sean M. Barber
International Journal of Spine Surgery February 2022, 8178; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8178
Jonathan J. Lee
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Saeed S. Sadrameli
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suraj Sulhan
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Virendra R. Desai
2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcus Wong
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean M. Barber
1 Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Bar graph illustrating the rate of reoperation among 47 patients undergoing surgical intervention for spondylodiscitis with spinal epidural abscess between 2011 and 2018. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in patients who underwent decompression alone as an index operation compared with those who underwent decompression and fusion (51.9% vs 10%, P = 0.004).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    (A) Sagittal magnetic resonance imaging with contrast of the thoracic spine in a patient who presented with upper thoracic back pain showing discitis-osteomyelitis at T4-5. (B) Sagittal and axial postoperative computed tomography images showing a left-sided T4-5 hemilaminectomy, which was the initial surgical treatment for this patient. (C) Sagittal x-ray images showing the patient’s reoperation, having underwent a T4-5 redo laminectomy and a T2-7 posterior fusion after the patient presented with persistent mechanical back pain, especially with axial loading.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Patient demographics.

    Total
    (n = 47)
    Decompression Alone
    (n = 27)
    Decompression + Fusion
    (n = 20)
    P Value
    Mean age, y59.560.358.50.52
    Male, % (n)68.1% (32)81.5% (22)50% (10)0.03
    Presumed source of infection, % (n)
     Urinary tract4.3% (2)7.4% (2)0% (0)0.50
     Skin and subcutaneous tissues21.3% (10)25.9% (7)15% (3)0.48
     Infected vascular access2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Pneumonia6.4% (3)0% (0)15% (3)0.07
     Septic joint6.4% (3)3.7% (1)10% (2)0.57
     Postoperative infection4.3% (2)3.7% (1)5% (1)1
     IVDU4.3% (2)0% (0)10% (2)0.18
     Unknown51.1% (24)55.6% (15)45% (9)0.56
    Underlying illness/conditions, % (n)
     Diabetes mellitus42.6% (20)44.4% (12)40% (8)1
     Hypertension68.1% (32)70.4% (19)65% (13)0.76
     Hyperlipidemia8.5% (4)11.1% (3)5% (1)0.63
     Immunosuppression4.3% (2)7.4% (2)0% (0)0.50
     ESRD/CKD19.1% (9)18.5% (5)20% (4)1
     Coronary artery disease21.3% (10)29.6% (8)10% (2)0.15
     Atrial fibrillation14.9% (7)14.8% (4)15% (3)1
     Congestive heart failure12.8% (6)7.4% (2)20% (4)0.38
     Liver disease6.4% (3)3.7% (1)10% (2)0.57
     COPD4.3% (2)3.7% (1)5% (1)1
     Peripheral vascular disease6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
     Malignancy8.5% (4)3.7% (1)15% (3)0.30
     IVDU8.5% (4)7.4% (2)10% (2)1
     Hepatitis B/C6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
     Obesity6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
     Rheumatic disease6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
    Clinical data, % (n)
     Back pain68.1% (32)81.5% (22)50% (10)0.03
     Neck pain17% (8)0% (0)40% (8)0.0004
     Radicular pain17% (8)22.2% (6)10% (2)0.44
     Neurologic deficit34% (16)37% (10)30% (6)0.76
    Involvement levels, % (n)
     ≥3 Vertebral bodies42.6% (20)51.9% (14)30% (6)0.15
     Epidural involvement48.9% (23)44.4% (12)55% (11)0.56
     Cervical spine only6.4% (3)0% (0)15% (3)0.07
     Thoracic spine only31.9% (15)29.6% (8)35% (7)0.76
     Lumbar spine only23.4% (11)25.9% (7)20% (4)0.74
     Cervicothoracic spine10.6% (5)3.7% (1)20% (4)0.15
     Thoracolumbar spine12.8% (6)18.5% (5)5% (1)0.22
     Lumbosacral spine14.9% (7)22.2% (6)5% (1)0.22
    Bacterial pathogen isolated, % (n)
     MSSA34% (16)33.3% (9)35% (7)1
     MRSA19.1% (9)18.5% (5)20% (4)1
     Unknown12.8% (6)14.8% (4)10% (2)1
     Group B streptococcus8.5% (4)11.1% (3)5% (1)0.63
     Mycobacterium avium 6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
     Alpha streptococcus4.6% (2)3.7% (1)5% (1)1
     Enterococcus faecalis 2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Escherichia coli 2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Coagulase-negative staphylococcus2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Staphylococcus lugdunensis 2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Propionibacterium acnes 2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)1
     Enterobacter2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)1
     Nocardia2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)1
     Klebsiella pneumoniae 2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)1
    Mean length of intravenous antibiotic therapy, wk6.76.76.71
    • CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; IVDU, intravenous drug use; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Radiographic follow-up and reoperation rates.

    Total Patients
    (n = 47)
    Decompression Alone Cohort (n = 27)Decompression + Fusion Cohort (n = 20) P Value
    Mean radiographic follow-up, mo17.919.715.30.83
    Reoperations, % (n)
     ≥1 Reoperation34.0% (16)51.9% (14)10% (2)0.004
     2 Reoperations12.8% (6)18.5% (5)5% (1)0.22
    Indications for initial reoperation, % (n)
     Axial pain27.7% (13)78.6% (11)10% (2)0.025
     Progressive deformity14.9% (7)50% (7)0% (0)0.015
     Neurological decline6.4% (3)21.4% (3)0% (0)0.25
     Recurrence of deep infection8.5% (4)21.4% (3)5% (1)0.63
     Hardware failure4.3% (2)0% (0)10% (2)0.18
    Goals of initial reoperation, % (n)
     Further decompression6.4% (3)7.4% (3)0% (0)0.25
     Fusion14.3% (7)29.6% (7)0% (0)0.015
     Further decompression + fusion8.5% (4)14.8% (4)0% (0)0.13
     Debridement of recurrent infection0% (0)0% (0)5% (1)0.46
     Revision of hardware4.3% (2)0% (0)10% (2)0.18
    Indications for second reoperation, % (n)
     Axial pain8.5% (4)14.8% (4)0% (0)0.13
     Progressive deformity4.3% (2)7.4% (2)0% (0)0.5
     Recurrence of deep infection6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
     Pseudarthrosis2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Hardware failure2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
    Goals of second reoperation, % (n)
     Further decompression0% (0)0% (0)0% (0)1
     Fusion6.4% (3)11.1% (3)0% (0)0.25
     Further decompression + fusion0% (0)0% (0)0% (0)1
     Debridement of recurrent infection6.4% (3)7.4% (2)5% (1)1
     Revision of hardware0% (0)0% (0)0% (0)1
    • View popup
    Table 3

    Clinical outcomes and complications.

    Total Patients
    (n = 47)
    Decompression Alone Cohort (n = 27)Decompression + Fusion Cohort (n = 20) P Value
    Clinical outcomes, % (n)
    Neurologic exam at latest follow-up
     Improved53.2% (25)59.3% (16)45% (9)0.39
     Stable36.2% (17)29.6% (8)45% (9)0.36
     Worse10.6% (5)11.1% (3)10% (2)1
    Posthospital disposition
     Discharged home36.1% (17)37% (10)35% (7)1
     Skilled nursing facility27.7% (13)18.5% (5)40% (8)0.19
     Rehabilitation17% (8)22.2% (6)10% (2)0.44
     Long-term acute care facility19.1% (9)22.2% (6)15% (3)0.71
    Length of stay, d14.913.516.70.13
    30-day Readmission14.9% (7)7.4% (2)25% (5)0.12
    Complications, % (n)
    Operative complications
     Total12.8% (6)11.1% (3)15% (3)1
     Durotomy2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Wound dehiscence requiring take back2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Wound infection requiring take back2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
     Superficial wound dehiscence2.1% (1)3.7% (1)0% (0)1
     Postoperative seroma2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
     Brachial plexopathy2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
    Medical complications
     Total12.8% (6)7.4% (2)20% (4)0.38
     Deep vein thrombosis4.3% (2)7.4% (2)0% (0)0.50
     Metabolic encephalopathy2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
     Pneumonia2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
     Respiratory failure2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
     Urinary tract infection2.1% (1)0% (0)5% (1)0.43
Next
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Role of Instrumentation in the Surgical Treatment of Spondylodiscitis and Spinal Epidural Abscess: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Role of Instrumentation in the Surgical Treatment of Spondylodiscitis and Spinal Epidural Abscess: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study
Jonathan J. Lee, Saeed S. Sadrameli, Suraj Sulhan, Virendra R. Desai, Marcus Wong, Sean M. Barber
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2022, 8178; DOI: 10.14444/8178

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Role of Instrumentation in the Surgical Treatment of Spondylodiscitis and Spinal Epidural Abscess: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study
Jonathan J. Lee, Saeed S. Sadrameli, Suraj Sulhan, Virendra R. Desai, Marcus Wong, Sean M. Barber
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2022, 8178; DOI: 10.14444/8178
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, 360° Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Arthroplasty for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Focus on Nerve Decompression and Painful Spinal Instability Resolution
  • Association Between Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Use and Surgical Outcomes Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Medical Claims Database Analysis
  • Postoperative Brace Prescription Practices for Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Questionnaire-Based Study of Spine Surgeons in Japan
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • spondylodiscitis
  • spinal infection
  • osteomyelitis
  • discitis
  • decompression
  • instrumented fusion
  • reoperation

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire