ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Medical versus surgical treatment of spondylodiscitis: does surgery spare resources?
Article 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.
- Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) Cement as an Interbody Spacer in Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis: Results of a Scoping Review.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Infectious Spondylodiscitis of Bacterial Causes in Adults: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Diagnostic and Treatment Challenges.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Direct pedicle screw fixation in infected vertebrae for acute pyogenic spondylitis: short-term outcomes from a single-arm retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic debridement with antibiotic-loaded cement beads implantation for lumbar spinal infection: a preliminary report on feasibility and early clinical outcomes.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal management of spondylodiscitis is still controversial. Large spectrum or targeted antibiotic therapy is the first option in neurologically intact patients, while surgery is reserved for cases of intractable pain, acute neurological defects and bone destruction-related spinal instability. Treatment failure due to lack of diagnosis may lead to infection persistence and progression, causing patients to shift from the medical to the surgical arm. In a 10 years' time, we treated 84 patients affected by primary spontaneous pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Forty-two patients underwent antibiotic therapy alone, 42 posterior fixation/decompression and disc debridement. At admission, we assessed all patients for neurological deficits and pain intensity, using appropriate imaging to rule out instability/neural compression. We compared the two groups in terms of pain control, mobilization, length of hospital stay, antibiotic therapy, and complications. Patients undergoing surgical treatment presented significantly shorter hospital stay, earlier and better pain control, faster mobilization from bed, shorter use of brace and shorter antibiotic therapy courses. No major complications occurred in both groups, while one revision was performed due to wound failure. In agreement with our results, posterior vertebral decompression and fixation should be considered a viable option in cases of spondylodiscitis with severe pain and/or neurological impairment. The operated patients fared clinically well (despite starting from worse clinical conditions than their medical counterparts) and the complication rate was negligible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40159536What 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.