Spinal infections in the north-east of Scotland: a retrospective analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Introduction Spinal infection (SI) is uncommon and patients present with varied clinical features. In this review, the presentation, investigation, treatment and outcome of patients with SI in the north-east of Scotland were assessed. Methods Electronic medical records of adult patients with SI hospitalised at a health board in the north-east of Scotland between 2014 and 2018 were analysed retrospectively. Collected variables included demographics, presenting clinical features, risk factors, comorbidities, admission blood results, microbiological investigations, imaging, treatment and outcomes. Results Seventy-two patients were included. Mean age (±sd) was 63.3 years (±14.5). The lumbar spine was the most commonly involved region (51.4%). Back pain (84.7%), altered mobility (33.3%) and fever (29.2%) were the most frequent presenting features. Thoracic spine involvement (p = 0.041), urinary symptoms (p = 0.033), cauda equina syndrome (CES) (p = 0.027) and limb weakness (p = 0.026) were associated with poorer outcome. A better outcome was associated with back pain at presentation (p = 0.03) and underlying malignancy (p = 0.045). Diabetes (15.3%), recent falls (15.3%) and immunosuppression (12.5%) were common. A likely causative organism was found in 54 patients (75.0%) and Staphylococcus aureus was isolated in 41.7% of patients. Penicillins were used in 56.3% of patients and 20.8% underwent surgery. Outcomes were full recovery (38.2%), residual symptoms or neurological deficits (50.0%), paraplegia (4.4%) and death (7.4%). Conclusions Poorer outcomes occurred in patients with thoracic disease, limb weakness, urinary symptoms or CES, whereas better outcomes were associated with the presence of back pain on presentation and malignancy. This analysis highlights the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of SI, alerting clinicians to key factors associated with prognosis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.