Search

Background: Primary spinal infections are rare pathologies with an estimated incidence of 5% of all osteomyelitis. The diagnosis can be challenging and this might result in a late identification. The etiological diagnosis is the primary concern to determine the most appropriate treatment. The aim of this review article was to identify the importance of a methodological attitude toward accurate and prompt diagnosis using an algorithm to aid on spinal infection management. Methods: A search was done on spinal infection in some databases including PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Ebsco, Embasco, and Scopus. Results: Literature reveals that on the basis of a clinical suspicion, the diagnosis can be formulated with a rational use of physical, radiological, and microbiological examinations. Microbiological culture samples can be obtained by a percutaneous computed tomography-guided procedure or by an open surgical biopsy. When possible, the samples should be harvested before antibiotic treatment is started. Indications for surgical treatment include neurological deficits or sepsis, spine instability and/or deformity, presence of epidural abscess and failure of conservative treatment. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary approach involving both a spinal surgeon and an infectious disease specialist is necessary to better define the treatment strategy. Based on literature findings, a treatment algorithm for the diagnosis and management of primary spinal infections is proposed.

Purpose: The recurrence of a lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of poor outcome following lumbar discectomy. The aim of this study was to assess a potential relationship between the incidence of recurrent LDH and the surgical technique used. Furthermore, we tried to define the best surgical technique for the treatment of recurrent LDH to limit subsequent recurrences. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 979 consecutive patients treated for LDH. A multivariate analysis tried to identify a possible correlation between (1) the surgical technique used to treat the primary LDH and its recurrence; (2) technique used to treat the recurrence of LDH and the second recurrence; and (3) incidence of recurrence and clinical outcome. Data were analyzed with the Pearson's Chi-square test for its significance. Results: In 582 cases (59.4%), a discectomy was performed, while in 381 (40.6%), a herniectomy was undertaken. In 16 cases, a procedure marked as “other” was performed. Among all patients, 110 (11.2%) had a recurrence. Recurrent LDH was observed in 55 patients following discectomy (9.45%), in 45 following herniectomy (11.8%), and in 10 (62.5%) following other surgery. Our data showed that 90.5% of discectomies and 88.2% of the herniectomies had a good clinical outcome, whereas other surgeries presented a recurrence rate of 62.5% (Pearson's χ2 < 0.001). No statistical differences were observed between discectomy or herniectomy, for the treatment of the recurrence, and the incidence for the second recurrences (P > 0.05). A significant statistical correlation emerged between the use of other techniques and the incidence for the second recurrences (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The recurrence of an LDH is one of the most feared complications following surgery. Although the standard discectomy has been considered more protective toward the recurrence compared to herniectomy, our data suggest that there is no significant correlation between the surgical technique and the risk of LDH recurrence.