Observational studyNeurosurgical review2025
Minimally invasive management of cervical spondylodiscitis. A multicenter experience.
Observational study in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anterior Cervical Abscess Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Caused byJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Anterior debridement, reconstruction, and fusion for cervical brucellosis spondylitis with epidural abscess: a single-center experience of 30 patients.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 · 2025Article
- Progress in diagnosis and treatment of primary spondylodiscitis: a systematic literature review.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- What Is Worse: A Comparison of Solitary Versus Multifocal Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis Using a Nationwide Analysis of Readmission Rates and Risk Factors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The urgent etiological diagnosis represents the main management objective of cervical spondylodiscitis (CSD) to start as soon as possible antibiotic treatment to prevent neurological deterioration. The present study aimed to evaluate a multicenter experience implementing a minimally invasive surgical approach (MISA) to manage CSD such pathology vs the most complex and aggressive surgical strategies currently used.This retrospective multicenter study used a database of 70 patients from five European neurosurgical centers. Patients with primary CSD underwent MISA via a limited funnel shaped cervical microdiscectomy with 4-mm anterior and 6-mm posterior longitudinal ligaments incision, PUS drainage, and extensive washing of the interbody and epidural space without fusion. Diagnosis was confirmed by clinical, imaging, laboratory, and perioperative histopathology and bacteriology.Of the 70 patients, 41 were men (58,5%), with an average age of 47.67 years. Severe neck pain affected 45 patients, while 51 had single-level cervical spondylodiscitis, 14 had double-level, and 5 had triple-level involvement. Staphylococcus aureus was identified in 49 cases. Each patient received a mean of three months of antibiotics. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) were moderate for four weeks, then normalized by 8-12 weeks, except in one recurrence. After an average 48-month follow-up, all patients fully recovered without neurological deficit, spinal instability, or kyphotic deformity. Radiological exams confirmed bony fusion, with no recurrences of infection. MISA treatment offers a valuable, stable, and less invasive option for treating CSD, effectively identifying causative microorganisms and decompressing the spinal cord, leading to excellent patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39779517What 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.