ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2022
Clinical relevance of occult infections in spinal pseudarthrosis revision.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unexpected positive culture (UPC) in adults revision spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence, risk factors, and management.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024Pooled it
- The identification of low-pathogenic bacteria on removed spinal implants and implications for antimicrobial prophylaxis.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Commentary on "Clinical relevance of occult infections in spinal pseudarthrosis revision".North American Spine Society journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Occult infections in spinal pseudarthrosis revisions have been reported in the literature, but the relevance of such an infection on patient outcomes is unknown. We aimed to elucidate clinical outcomes and re-revision risks between patients with and without occult infections in spinal revision surgery for pseudarthrosis. Methods: In this matched case-control study, we identified 128 patients who underwent thoracolumbar revision surgery from 2014-2019 for pseudarthrosis of the spine. Among them, 13 (10.2%) revealed an occult infection (defined by at least two positive intraoperative tissue samples with the same pathogen), and nine of these 13 were available for follow-up. We selected 18 of the 115 controls using a 2:1 fuzzy matching based on fusion length and length of follow-up. The patients were followed up to assess subsequent re-revision surgeries and the following postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): overall satisfaction, Oswestry Disability Index, 5-level EQ-5D, and Short Form 36. Results: Patient characteristics, surgical data, and length of follow-up were equal between both study groups. The rate of re-revision free survival after the initial pseudarthrosis revision surgery was higher in the occult infection group (77.8%) than the non-infectious controls (44.4%), although not significantly (0.22). The total number of re-revision surgeries, including re-re-revisions, was thirteen (in ten patients) in the control and two (in two patients) in the occult infection group (p = 0.08) after a median follow-up of 24 months (range 13-75). Four cases in the control group underwent re-revision for pseudarthrosis compared to none in the infected group. Satisfactory scores were recorded in all PROMs, with similar scores between the two groups. Conclusions: The presence of an occult infection accompanying spinal pseudarthrosis revision was not inferior to non-infected pseudarthrosis revisions in a matched, small sample size cohort study. This may be explained due to the possibility of targeted treatment of the identified cause of pseudarthrosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.