The effect of instrumentation staging on patient outcomes in pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis is a bacterial infection of the vertebral body that is often treatable with antibiotics, but some cases require additional surgical debridement of the infected tissue. Instrumentation is often utilized for stabilization of the spine as part of the surgical treatment, but controversy remains over the relative risks and benefits of acute instrumentation performed simultaneously with debridement versus delayed instrumentation performed days or weeks after debridement. The purpose of this review was to investigate the relative effects of acute and delayed instrumentation in treatment for pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis on patient outcomes. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies published between January 1, 1997 and July 23, 2021. Studies were screened for pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome of interest was reinfection. Other outcomes of interest included neurological status, pain, progression of kyphosis, fusion, hardware failure, length of hospitalization, and mortality at two years. Due to the limited multi-armed studies available that distinguish between patients with acute and delayed instrumentation, inferential statistics were not performed, and data are expressed as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising 299 patients, including 113 (37.8%) with surgical treatment without fixation, 138 (46.2%) with acute instrumentation, and 48 (16.1%) with delayed instrumentation. Reinfection rates were 60.0% (15/25) for surgical treatment without fixation, 28.6% (2/7) for the acute instrumentation, and 14.3% (1/7) for the delayed instrumentation group. Pain was present after surgery in 52.0% (13/25) of the surgical treatment without fixation group, 14.3% (1/7) of the acute instrumentation group, and 0% (0/7) of the delayed instrumentation group. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences in patient outcomes were apparent between acute and delayed instrumentation groups. Further research is needed to determine whether instrumentation staging has a significant impact on patient outcomes.