Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Surgery and Traditional Anterior Open Surgery for Treating Lumbar Infectious Spondylitis

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming popular for treating spinal disorders. The advantages of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage (PEDD) for infectious spondylitis include direct observation of the lesion, direct pus drainage, and earlier pain relief. We retrospectively reviewed 37 patients who underwent PEDD and 31 who underwent traditional anterior open debridement and interbody fusion with bone grafting from 2004 to 2012. The causative organisms were isolated from 30 patients (81.1%) following PEDD, and from 25 patients (80.6%) following open surgery (p = 0.48). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen (38.2%). In the PEDD group, blood loss (<50 mL versus 585 ± 428 mL, p < 0.001) was significantly lesser and the duration of hospitalization (24.4 ± 12.5 days versus 31.5 ± 14.6 days, p = 0.03) was shorter than that in the open surgery group. Serologically, there were significantly faster C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) normalization rates in the PEDD group (p < 0.001, p = 0.009, respectively). In the two-year follow-up radiographs, 26 out of 30 (86.7%) open surgery patients showed bony fusions of the infected segments. On the contrary, sclerotic change of the destructive endplates was observed and the motion of infected spinal segments was still preserved in the PEDD group. There was no significant difference in the change of sagittal profile, including primary correction gain, correction loss, and actual correction gain/loss. PEDD is an effective alternative option and should be considered prior to traditional extensive spinal surgery—particularly for patients with early-stage spinal infection or serious complicated medical conditions.