- Original Article
- Open Access
Percutaneous suction and irrigation for the treatment of recalcitrant pyogenic spondylodiscitis
© The Author(s) 2018
- Received: 26 February 2017
- Accepted: 27 November 2017
- Published: 20 August 2018
The primary management of pyogenic spondylodiscitis is conservative. Once the causative organism has been identified, by blood culture or biopsy, administration of appropriate intravenous antibiotics is started. Occasionally patients do not respond to antibiotics and surgical irrigation and debridement is needed. The treatment of these cases is challenging and controversial. Furthermore, many affected patients have significant comorbidities often precluding more extensive surgical intervention. The aim of this study is to describe early results of a novel, minimally invasive percutaneous technique for disc irrigation and debridement in pyogenic spondylodiscitis.
Materials and methods
A series of 10 consecutive patients diagnosed with pyogenic spondylodiscitis received percutaneous disc irrigation and debridement. The procedure was performed by inserting two Jamshidi needles percutaneously into the disc space. Indications for surgery were poor response to antibiotic therapy (8 patients) and the need for more extensive biopsy (2 patients). Pre- and postoperative white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analogue score (VAS) for back pain were collected. Minimum follow-up was 18 months, with regular interval assessments.
There were 7 males and 3 females with a mean age of 67 years. The mean WBC before surgery was 14.63 × 109/L (10.9–26.4) and dropped to 7.48 × 109/L (5.6–9.8) after surgery. The mean preoperative CRP was 188 mg/L (111–250) and decreased to 13.83 mg/L (5–21) after surgery. Similar improvements were seen with ESR. All patients reported significant improvements in ODI and VAS scores after surgery. The average hospital stay after surgery was 8.17 days. All patients had resolution of the infection, and there were no complications associated with the procedure.
Our study confirms the feasibility and safety of our percutaneous technique for irrigation and debridement of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Percutaneous irrigation and suction offers a truly minimally invasive option for managing recalcitrant spondylodiscitis or for diagnostic purposes. The approach used is very similar to discography and can be easily adapted to different hospital settings.
Level of Evidence
- Pyogenic spondylodiscitis
- Minimally invasive technique
- Spinal abscess drainage
- Spinal percutaneous drainage
The term pyogenic spondylodiscitis is used to describe a spectrum of spinal infections encompassing vertebral osteomyelitis, spondylitis and discitis. Although relatively rare, spondylodiscitis is the main manifestation of haematogenous osteomyelitis in patients aged >50 years  and represents 3–5% of all cases of osteomyelitis [2, 3]. Estimates of its incidence range from 4−24 per million per year in developed countries . Diabetes is the most common risk factor for the development of spondylodiscitis; other risk factors include advancing age, intravenous drug use, immunosuppression, malignancy, renal failure, rheumatological disease and previous spinal surgery . Although a wide range of organisms have been associated with spondylodiscitis, it remains primarily a monomicrobial bacterial infection with Staphylococcus aureus being the predominant pathogen in over half of the reported cases . More than half of all cases of haematogenous spondylodiscitis occur within the lumbar spine followed by the thoracic and cervical spine in decreasing frequency (58, 30 and 11%, respectively) .
The primary management of spondylodiscitis is conservative. Once the causative organism has been identified, by blood culture or biopsy, appropriate intravenous (IV) antibiotics are started. Treatment regimens of 6–14 weeks have been reported, with criteria for discontinuation including resolution of symptoms to normalisation of inflammatory markers . Indications for surgical intervention include neural compression, spinal instability and deformity or failure of conservative management . The aim of surgical treatment in cases that are unresponsive to conservative treatment is to provide early debridement of the infection and decrease the bacterial load. Surgery is also indicated in more severe cases when neurology or mechanical stability is compromised.
Historically, debridement and drainage of disc abscess has been performed through open surgery and anterior exposure of the spine. More recently, minimally invasive techniques for surgical management of resistant spondylodiscitis have been described [9–15]. Percutaneous transpedicular discectomy and drainage (PTDD) makes use of the pedicle as the entry point to the disc space [10, 12, 13]. Although this allows safe access to the disc space, the main drawbacks of this technique are limited access to the disc space due to the orientation and limited size of the pedicle as well as the risk of spreading the infection to the posterior elements. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy (PED) was first developed for the treatment of herniated discs in the 1980s. More recently, this technique has been adapted for use in treating spinal infections [9, 11, 14]. PED allows better access than PTDD and direct visualisation of the disc space; however, it requires skills and equipment only available in centres which routinely carry out PED .
The aim of this study was to report on the feasibility of a novel percutaneous technique for irrigation and debridement of the intervertebral disc space in patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Our technique makes use of an approach to the disc space similar to discography and does not require any specific equipment. A detailed description of the technique is provided along with a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients who were successfully treated by the authors.
Following institutional review board approval (as part of service evaluation), the records of 10 consecutive patients surgically treated with our newly developed technique for percutaneous drainage of disc abscess from October 2014 to December 2015 were retrieved from our database. All patients had been diagnosed with pyogenic spondylodiscitis. In eight patients, the causative agent had been identified through blood cultures or computed tomography (CT) guided biopsy; however, in two patients no causative agent could be identified. Indications for surgery were failure to respond to antimicrobial therapy (eight patients) and the need of a more extensive biopsy to establish a microbiological diagnosis (two patients). Failure to respond to antibiotic therapy (i.e., poor responders) was defined as a ≤ 50% decrease of CRP levels after a 2-week course of IV antibiotic therapy. All patients were evaluated by our infectious disease (ID) team and received IV antibiotic therapy as directed by the ID team. All patients were discharged home on antibiotic therapy when clinically stable and were seen in the outpatient clinic at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks after surgery. White blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) levels were measured during hospital admission and at every outpatient follow-up. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also collected at diagnosis and at each follow-up appointment. The clinical charts of the patients were reviewed for any perioperative complication.
A total of 10 patients (7 male and 3 female) underwent percutaneous drainage of disc abscess for pyogenic spondylodiscitis using the method described above over a 14-month period. The mean age was 67 years (51–82 years). The patients were all initially managed with appropriate antibiotics following confirmation of the causative pathogen by blood culture. In two patients, antibiotic therapy was withheld until percutaneous drainage of the disc was performed to obtain adequate samples for diagnosis. S. aureus was isolated in seven patients and treatment with IV flucloxacillin and clindamycin was initiated. In the remaining three cases, Escherichia coli was isolated and treated with amoxicillin. The mean duration of treatment prior to surgery was 2 weeks (1–6 weeks).
The mean WCC levels were 10.15 × 109/L (7.9–13.1) on presentation and 14.63 × 109/L (10.9–26.4) following treatment with antibiotics [average increase of 4.48 × 109/L (0.6–13.3)], indicating a failure to respond to the therapy. Postoperatively, the average WCC decreased to 7.48 × 109/L (5.6–9.8), i.e., a reduction of 7.15 × 109/L (2.8–16.6). The mean CRP was 301.33 mg/L (173–600) on presentation and decreased to 188 mg/L (111–250) after antibiotic therapy, i.e., a reduction of 113.33 mg/L (29–350). Following percutaneous disc washout, the mean CRP reduced to 13.83 mg/L (5–21), i.e., a mean reduction of 174.16 mg/L (102–229). The mean ESR was 102 mm/h (83–128) preoperatively and reduced to 23.67 mm/h (19–28) following washout of the disc.
Spondylodiscitis is a rare condition; however, the incidence is increasing due to a growing at-risk population and improved rates of diagnosis . Medical treatment remains the mainstay of management, with administration of appropriate antibiotics after the causative organism has been isolated. Indications for surgery include neurological compromise, vertebral collapse and failure of conservative management.
Traditional surgical management involved open washout and debridement of infected material . This carried the risk of significant morbidity in a patient group where most of them have pre-existing health problems . As a result, several minimally invasive techniques have been described. These have been shown to yield successful results in the treatment of spondylodiscitis but each have their own limitations . The transpedicular route involves the violation of otherwise generally unaffected posterior elements with potential complications such as fracture and neurological injury. Arya et al. reported a series of 15 patients undergoing transpedicular discectomy and drainage for spondylodiscitis . There were no early or late surgical complications, eight patients experienced an improvement in symptoms within 24 h. Four patients failed to respond and underwent open debridement and fusion. Hadjipavlou et al. described similar management of six patients for treatment of resistant discitis . Five patients reported significant symptomatic relief following the procedure with a follow-up of 18 months. The percutaneous methods previously described are adaptions of techniques used for elective discectomy and, as such, require specialist equipment which may only be available in centres where this is routinely performed [9, 11, 14]. Haaker et al. and Li et al. reported a series of 26 and 34 patients, respectively, where initial organism culture had been identified via percutaneous discectomy [11, 14]. Both series reported no significant postoperative complications. Fu et al. reported 14 patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis treated by percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and drainage . Two of these patients required early open debridement and anterior fusion and a further two patients had recurrent infection and underwent subsequent open surgery.
In this report, we describe a novel technique for percutaneous drainage of disc abscess in pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Our technique makes advantage of a similar approach to that used for discography. As such, only a C-arm image intensifier and two Jamshidi needles are needed. This procedure can be performed under local anaesthesia or conscious sedation. It can be used for diagnostic purposes (when blood cultures or CT-guided biopsy are negative) or to decrease the infection burden and debride the disc space in non-responsive cases. In our series, the procedure was used in patients with a ≤ 50% decrease of CRP level after a 2-week course of IV antibiotics. The procedure allows quick and minimally invasive access to the disc space. The access to the disc space through soft tissue allows more freedom to the needle and better access to the disc space. Furthermore, this avoids penetration of the bone elements of the posterior arch and the spinal canal, reducing the risk of posterior spread of the infection. The access to the disc allows debridement of the disc space and decrease of the infection burden. In this way, hypoxic and poorly perfused areas of the disc can be accessed and local antibiotics can be injected at the end of the procedure. Finally, this technique is technically less demanding and can be easily adapted to different hospital settings. Although we have not noticed any complication in a first series of 10 patients, we would caution against the use of this technique in cases with severe compromise of the posterior annulus to avoid spread of the infection to the posterior canal. We believe our technique may be a valuable adjunct to the minimally invasive treatment of spinal infections and should be considered in patients with early stage spinal infections or serious medical conditions. Our technique is not indicated in cases were mechanical stability of the spine is compromised or if there is any risk of impending neurological compromise.
WGJ developed study idea, collected data, drafted the manuscript. LAN collected data, participated to the surgeries, drafted the manuscript. EP performed statistical analysis and data validation, reviewed manuscript. OMS participated to the surgeries, supervised data collection, reviewed manuscript. HM developed the original surgical technique, performed surgeries and reviewed manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Obtaining the informed consent to participate to the study from involved patients was waived by the Institutional Review Board; all procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments; the study was conducted as part of service evaluation in accordance to UK clinical governance laws and was approved by our Institutional Review Board.
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Jensen AG, Espersen F, Skinhøj P et al (1997) Increasing frequency of vertebral osteomyelitis following Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in Denmark 1980–1990. J Infect 34:113–118View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sobottke R, Seifert H, Fätkenheuer G et al (2008) Current diagnosis and treatment of spondylodiscitis. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:181–187. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2008.0181 PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fantoni M, Trecarichi EM, Rossi B et al (2012) Epidemiological and clinical features of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 16:2–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grammatico L, Baron S, Rusch E et al (2008) Epidemiology of vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) in France: analysis of hospital-discharge data 2002–2003. Epidemiol Infect 136:653–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268807008850 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carragee EJ (1997) Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:874–880View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gouliouris T, Aliyu SH, Brown NM (2010) Spondylodiscitis: update on diagnosis and management. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(Suppl 3):iii11–iii24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq303 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mylona E, Samarkos M, Kakalou E et al (2009) Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: a systematic review of clinical characteristics. Semin Arthritis Rheum 39:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.03.002 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guerado E, Cerván AM (2012) Surgical treatment of spondylodiscitis. An update. Int Orthop 36:413–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1441-1 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Gebhard JS, Brugman JL (1994) Percutaneous discectomy for the treatment of bacterial discitis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:855–857View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Arya S, Crow WN, Hadjipaviou AG et al (1996) Percutaneous transpedicular management of discitis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 7:921–927View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haaker RG, Senkal M, Kielich T, Krämer J (1997) Percutaneous lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar discitis. Eur Spine J 6:98–101View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hadjipavlou AG, Crow WN, Borowski A et al (1998) Percutaneous transpedicular discectomy and drainage in pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 27:188–197Google Scholar
- Hadjipavlou AG, Katonis PK, Gaitanis IN et al (2004) Percutaneous transpedicular discectomy and drainage in pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Eur Spine J 13:707–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0699-z View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Li J, Yan D, Duan L et al (2011) Percutaneous discectomy and drainage for postoperative intervertebral discitis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:173–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1115-2 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fu T-S, Chen L-H, Chen W-J (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and drainage for infectious spondylodiscitis. Biomed J 36:168–174. https://doi.org/10.4103/2319-4170.112742 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar