ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
Operative and antibiotic treatment of cervical spondylodiscitis: a retrospective bicentric outcome analysis.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveCervical spondylodiscitis is a rare but complex disease due to its potential for severe neurological impairments and post-infectious deformity. The reported mortality rate ranges from 5 to 10%. Radical surgical treatment is usually followed by antibiotic therapy. There is, however, no uniform treatment guideline. Implant choice, extent of fusion and duration of treatment vary across centers. The aim of this study is to analyze a decade of treatment of patients suffering from primary cervical spondylodiscitis to gain insights for improving existing treatment strategies.
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of surgically treated patients suffering from cervical spondylodiscitis between January 2014 and December 2024 in two academic spine centers. Following ethical approval, pre- and postoperative imaging and clinical course were evaluated. Outcome analysis included assessment of implant complications, corrections of sagittal and coronal profiles, complication rates, length of hospital stay, neurological deficits, pain intensity, and 1-year survival. Clinical and radiological reassessments were performed at or shortly after completion of antibiotic therapy.
resultsThe study included 33 patients (52% males) with a median age at diagnosis of 68 years (IQR 59-76 years). The most common pathogen was staphylococcus aureus (39%). All patients underwent surgical debridement, predominantly by ventral decompression and fusion (90%). Following surgery, a significant number of patients showed an improvement in cervical radiculopathy and neck pain (n = 24/33, p < 0.0001). One patient required revision surgery due to screw misplacement during the same hospital stay. The average inpatient stay was 23 days (21 days), with 15 patients requiring postoperative treatment in the intensive care unit. Within a median clinical follow-up of three months there was radiological evidence of implant-loosening in five (15%) patients. Three (9%) patients died within one year because of sepsis, all of whom were older than 75 years and had significant comorbidities (ASA score > 3).
conclusionOur study supports the effectiveness of surgical treatment for cervical spondylodiscitis in short to medium-term outcome analysis, particularly through ventral decompression and fusion. The significant improvement in radiculopathy and pain reduction post-surgery underscores the treatment benefits. However, 1-year mortality is still high in geriatric patients with relevant comorbidities. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes and complications to further optimize the treatment strategy for this dangerous condition.
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.