ArticleBrain & spine2026
Risk factors for revision surgery due to construct failure after instrumented treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis.
Article in Brain & spine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Construct failure following instrumented treatment for pyogenic spondylodiscitis remains a significant clinical challenge and is often associated with persistent pain or neurological deterioration requiring revision surgery. This study aimed to identify risk factors for construct failure requiring revision surgery after instrumented treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Methods: This retrospective single-center cohort study included 355 patients who underwent dorsal spinal instrumentation with or without anterior reconstruction for pyogenic spondylodiscitis at the University Medical Center Göttingen between 2013 and 2022. Construct failure requiring revision surgery was defined as the primary endpoint. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Baseline predictors included age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP), and osteoporosis. An extended model additionally incorporated postoperative relapse infection and wound infection. Results: During a mean follow-up of 27 ± 9 months, 48 of 355 patients (13.8%) underwent revision surgery due to construct failure. Revision-free survival was 86.9% at 1 year, 82.7% at 2 years, and 80.9% at 3 years. In the baseline Cox proportional hazards model, a higher CCI (HR 1.08 per point increase, 95% CI 1.00-1.16; p = 0.048) and elevated CRP (HR 1.004 per mg/L increase, 95% CI 1.001-1.007; p = 0.018) were independently associated with an increased hazard of revision surgery due to construct failure.In the extended model, relapse infection emerged as the strongest predictor of revision surgery due to construct failure (HR 11.54, 95% CI 5.05-26.36; p < 0.001), while CCI and preoperative CRP remained significant. Age, osteoporosis, and wound infection were not independently associated with revision surgery due to construct failure. Conclusion: Greater comorbidity burden and elevated preoperative CRP were associated with an increased risk of revision surgery due to construct failure, whereas postoperative relapse infection was strongly associated to revision surgery. Optimized risk stratification and stringent infection control may help to reduce revision risk.
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.