Percutaneous Versus Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Study design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare percutaneous (PPS) versus open pedicle screw (OPS) fixation for treatment of thoracic and lumbar spondylodiscitis.

Summary of background data: Pyogenic spondylodiscitis of the thoracic and lumbar spine can produce instability, deformity, and/or neurological compromise. When medical treatment is unsuccessful, surgical treatment is indicated, with the conventional open approach the usual standard of care. However, percutaneous techniques can be advantageous in medically vulnerable patients.

Materials and methods: A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, looking for comparative articles on pyogenic spondylodiscitis requiring surgical stabilization with pedicle screws. This systematic review is reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

Results: From 215 articles initially identified, 7 retrospective studies were analyzed, encapsulating an overall sample of 722 patients: 405 male (56.1%) and 317 female (43.9%). The treatment modality was PPS fixation in 342 patients (47.4%) and OPS fixation in 380 (52.6%). For PPS, operating time was 29.75 minutes ( P <0.0001), blood loss 390.18 mL ( P <0.00001), postoperative pain 1.54 points ( P <0.00001), and length of stay 4.49 days ( P =0.001) less than with OPS fixation, and wound infection 7.2% ( P =0.003) less frequent. No difference in screw misplacement ( P =0.94) or loosening ( P =0.33) rates was observed.

Conclusion: Employing PPS fixation to treat pyogenic spondylodiscitis of the thoracic and lumbar spine is associated with significantly reduced operating time, blood loss, postoperative pain, length of stay, and rates of wound infection than OPS fixation, with no difference between the 2 treatments in rates of screw misplacement or screw loosening.