A novel scoring system concept for de novo spinal infection treatment, the Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score (SITE Score): a proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVE: De novo infections of the spine are an increasing healthcare problem. The decision for nonsurgical or surgical treatment is often made case by case on the basis of physician experience, specialty, or practice affiliation rather than evidence-based medicine. To create a more systematic foundation for surgical assessments of de novo spinal infections, the authors applied a formal validation process toward developing a spinal infection scoring system using principles gained from other spine severity scoring systems like the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score, Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score, and AO Spine classification of thoracolumbar injuries. They utilized an expert panel and literature reviews to develop a severity scale called the "Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score" (SITE Score). METHODS: The authors conducted an evidence-based process of combining literature reviews, extracting key elements from previous scoring systems, and obtaining iterative expert panel input while following a formal Delphi process. The resulting basic SITE scoring system was tested on selected de novo spinal infection cases and serially refined by an international multidisciplinary expert panel. Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa, respectively. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for cutoff value analysis. The predictive validity was assessed through cross-tabulation analysis. RESULTS: The conceptual SITE scoring system combines the key variables of neurological symptoms, infection location, radiological variables for instability and impingement of neural elements, pain, and patient comorbidities. Ten patients formed the first cohort of de novo spinal infections, which was used to validate the conceptual scoring system. A second cohort of 30 patients with de novo spinal infections, including the 10 patients from the first cohort, was utilized to validate the SITE Score. Mean scores of 6.73 ± 1.5 and 6.90 ± 3.61 were found in the first and second cohorts, respectively. The ICCs for the total score were 0.989 (95% CI 0.975-0.997, p < 0.01) in the first round of scoring system validation, 0.992 (95% CI 0.981-0.998, p < 0.01) in the second round, and 0.961 (95% CI 0.929-0.980, p < 0.01) in the third round. The mean intraobserver reliability was 0.851 ± 0.089 in the third validation round. The SITE Score yielded a sensitivity of 97.77% ± 3.87% and a specificity of 95.53% ± 3.87% in the last validation round for the panel treatment decision. CONCLUSIONS: The SITE scoring concept showed statistically meaningful reliability parameters. Hopefully, this effort will provide a foundation for a future evidence-based decision aid for treating de novo spinal infections. The SITE Score showed promising inter- and intraobserver reliability. It could serve as a helpful tool to guide physicians' therapeutic decisions in managing de novo spinal infections and help in comparison studies to better understand disease severity and outcomes.

An Assessment of the Safety of Surgery and Hardware Placement in de-novo Spinal Infections. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives were outcomes comparison of instrumented surgery used for de-novo spinal infections in terms of infection recurrence, reoperations, primary failure, mortality, and length of stay relative to non-instrumented surgery. Secondary objectives were outcomes for surgical and non-surgical treatment of de-novo spinal infections regarding recurrence of infection, mortality, quality of life, and length-of-stay. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed database. Studies comparing outcome variables of patients with de-novo spinal infections (DNSI) treated with and without instrumentation and surgical versus non-surgical treatment were included. Studies primarily focusing on epidural abscesses or non-de-novo infections were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed for infection recurrence, reoperation, primary treatment failure, mortality, and quality-of-life parameters. RESULTS: A total of 17 retrospective studies with 2.069 patients met the inclusion criteria. 1.378 patients received surgical treatment with or without instrumentation; 676 patients were treated non-surgically. For the comparison of instrumented to non-instrumented surgery Odds-Ratios were .98 (P = .95) for infection recurrence, .83 (P = .92) for primary failure, .53 (P = .02) for mortality and .32 (P = .05) for reoperation. For the comparison of non-surgical to surgical treatment, Odds-Ratios were .98 (P = .95) for infection recurrence, and 1.05 (P = .89) for mortality. CONCLUSION: Available data support that instrumented surgery can be performed safely without higher rates of infection recurrence or primary failure and lower reoperation and mortality rates compared to nonsurgical treatment for DNSI. Furthermore, spine surgical treatment may generally be performed without higher risk of infection recurrence and mortality and better quality-of-life outcomes compared to generic non-surgical treatment.

Complication rates following stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: a single institution series after 10 years of experience.

PURPOSE: This retrospective single institution study's goal was to analyze and report the complications from stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF). METHODS: This research was approved by the institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients with adult degenerative spine deformity treated via LLIF at our institution between January 2016 and December 2020. RESULTS: Stand-alone LLIF was performed in 158 patients (145 XLIF, 13 OLIF; mean age 65 y.; 88 f., 70 m.). Mean surgical time was 85 min (± 24 min). Mean follow-up was 14 months (± 5 m). Surgical blood loss averaged 120 mL (± 187 mL) and the mean number of fused levels was 1.2 (± 0.4 levels). Overall complication rate was 19.6% (31 total; 23 approach-related, 8 secondary complications). CONCLUSION: Lateral interbody fusion appears to be a safe surgical intervention with relatively low complication- and revision rates.

Qualitative Evaluation of Educational Content on Lateral Spine Surgery YouTube™ Demonstrations.

OBJECTIVE:  This study assessed the quality of educational content for lateral spine fusion procedures on YouTube™. METHODS:  YouTube™ was searched using the following keywords and phrases: "Lateral lumbar interbody fusion," "lateral lumbar spine surgery," "Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)," "Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF)," and "Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF)." An expert panel of three senior-level spine surgeons [rater one to three (R1-R3)] rated videos on 13 qualitative evaluation parameters via a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS:  Thirty-eight videos were included for evaluation. Interrater reliability analysis indicated a moderate agreement between R1 and R2 (κ=0.50; standard error, SE = 0.05), R1 and R3 (κ = 0.60, SE = 0.04), and a substantial agreement between R2 and R3 (κ = 0.65, SE = 0.04). Unanimously positive assessments of the quality of the intraoperative presentation varied between 42% and 63% of the rated videos. However, perioperative quality features were unanimously rated positively less than 21% of the videos. CONCLUSION:  With regard to the surgical approach and execution of lateral lumbar fusions, YouTube™ videos can be seen as a valuable addition to academic education. The main problem, however, is the lack of control mechanisms that check the quality of the content offered before it is consumed by patients, students, and doctors in training.