Ongoing decision-making dilemma for treatment of de novo spinal infections: a comparison of the Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score with the Spinal Instability Spondylodiscitis Score and Spine Instability Neoplastic Score.

OBJECTIVE: De novo spinal infections are an increasing medical problem. The decision-making for surgical or nonsurgical treatment for de novo spinal infections is often a non-evidence-based process and commonly a case-by-case decision by single physicians. A scoring system based on the latest evidence might help improve the decision-making process compared with other purely radiology-based scoring systems or the judgment of a single senior physician. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years with an infection of the spine who underwent nonsurgical or surgical treatment between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Clinical data for neurological status, pain, and existing comorbidities were gathered and transferred to an anonymous spreadsheet. Patients without an MR image and a CT scan of the affected spine region were excluded from the investigation. A multidisciplinary expert panel used the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), Spinal Instability Spondylodiscitis Score (SISS), and Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score (SITE Score), previously developed by the authors' group, on every clinical case. Each physician of the expert panel gave an individual treatment recommendation for surgical or nonsurgical treatment for each patient. Treatment recommendations formed the expert panel opinion, which was used to calculate predictive validities for each score. RESULTS: A total of 263 patients with spinal infections were identified. After the exclusion of doubled patients, patients without de novo infections, or those without CT and MRI scans, 123 patients remained for the investigation. Overall, 70.70% of patients were treated surgically and 29.30% were treated nonoperatively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the SITE Score, SINS, and SISS were 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95, p < 0.01), 0.65 (95% CI 0.91-0.83, p < 0.01), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.91-0.89, p < 0.01). In comparison with the expert panel decision, the SITE Score reached a sensitivity of 96.97% and a specificity of 81.90% for all included patients. For potentially unstable and unstable lesions, the SISS and the SINS yielded sensitivities of 84.42% and 64.07%, respectively, and specificities of 31.16% and 56.52%, respectively. The SITE Score showed higher overall sensitivity with 97.53% and a higher specificity for patients with epidural abscesses (75.00%) compared with potentially unstable and unstable lesions for the SINS and the SISS. The SITE Score showed a significantly higher agreement for the definitive treatment decision regarding the expert panel decision, compared with the decision by a single physician for patients with spondylodiscitis, discitis, or spinal osteomyelitis. CONCLUSIONS: The SITE Score shows high sensitivity and specificity regarding the treatment recommendation by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The SITE Score shows higher predictive validity compared with radiology-based scoring systems or a single physician and demonstrates a high validity for patients with epidural abscesses.

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.