Pyogenic spondylitis in adults is usually treated by antibiotics according to bacteria evidenced in a diagnostic intervertebral disc puncture. Brace treatment is associated in patients presenting back pain and a risk for vertebral body collapse due to infection with subsequent kyphotic deformity of the thoracolumbar spine. Percutaneous minimally invasive posterior spinal instrumentation has evolved over the last decade and indications in infections arouse over the last years. This procedure is interesting as it is performed through small skin incisions only. It avoids paravertebral muscle dissection and thus limits intraoperative bleeding and access morbidity. Recent retrospective data suggests that this internal fixation represents a theoretical advantage over brace treatment by lowering back pain and increasing patient's quality of life in the short run, up to 3 months, but no randomized study was published. The patient's autonomy, including walking ability and daily activities, might improve more rapidly after a percutaneous procedure. Additionally, the sagittal alignment of the thoracolumbar spine could be better maintained by internal fixation, which might prevent progression into kyphosis and improve long-term outcome. The hypothesis is the superiority of percutaneous minimally invasive instrumentation on brace treatment in term of quality of life, back pain and quality of osseous healing.
Safety and efficacy of percutaneous for the indication of pyogenic spondylitis has been demonstrated retrospectively on small cohort studies, which is in line with our clinical experience. Although this therapeutic concept seems applicable to patients with spondylitis, the theoretical clinical benefit of minimally invasive surgery remains hypothetic and unclear compared to brace treatment, which might still be regarded as the gold standard.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
150
The spine is stabilized cranially and caudally of the level of spondylodiscitis. The percutaneous instrumentation consists of a rod and pedicle screw construct. The vertebrae are instrumented through minimal skin incisions using a fluoroscopic guidance or a spinal navigation system based on 3D imaging.
Brace treatment is associated in patients presenting back pain and a risk for vertebral body collapse due to infection with subsequent kyphotic deformity of the thoracolumbar spine
CHU de Bordeaux - Hôpital Pellegrin - Unité d'orthopédie-traumatologie rachis I
Bordeaux, France
CHU de CAEN
Caen, France
Hôpital Beaujon - Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologie
Clichy, France
CHU François Mitterand - Bocage central - Service de Neurochirurgie
Dijon, France
CHU de GRENOBLE
Grenoble, France
CHU Lyon - Hôpital Pierre Wertheimer - Service de Neurochirurgie C et chirurgie du rachis
Lyon, France
CHU Marseille - Hôpital Timone - Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique
Marseille, France
Hôpital Gui de Chauliac - Service de Neurochirurgie
Montpellier, France
Hôpital Central - Service de Neurochirurgie
Nancy, France
CHU Hôtel Dieu - Service de Neurotraumatologie
Nantes, France
...and 5 more locations
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Pre treatment
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Post treatment day 5
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Post treatment 6 weeks
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Post treatment 3 months
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Post treatment 6 months
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Post treatment 1 year
Comparison of VAS for back pain for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
VAS score from 0 to 10 filled out by patients for clinical evaluation of primary outcome measure (pain)
Time frame: Post treatment 2 years
Comparison of quality of life (QoL) by EQ-5D for brace versus percutaneous instrumentation
EQ-5D-3L questionnaire filled out by the patients
Time frame: Change of score between pre treatment and during 2 years after treatment
- Comparison of influence of both treatment on kyphotic deformity - Comparison of fusion rates versus pseudarthrosis for both treatments
Radiographic measurements by modified sagittal index on lateral radiographs in standing position
Time frame: Change of measures between pre treatment and during 2 years after treatment
Analysis of correlation between kyhphosis / fusion and VAS / QoL scores
Radiographic measurements by modified sagittal index on lateral radiographs in standing position
Time frame: Change of measures between pre treatment and during 2 years after treatment
Course of CRP
Routine blood tests for documentation of CRP
Time frame: Change of value between pre treatment and during 3 months after treatment
Documentation of secondary complications after percutaneous instrumentation
Comparison of influence of both treatment
Time frame: Change between pre treatment and during 2 years after treatment
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.