Variation of practice in the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis: a European Association of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Section study.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of neurosurgery. Spine Pub Date : 2024-05-17 Print Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.3171/2024.2.SPINE231202
Andreas Kramer, Santhosh Gouthaman Thavarajasingam, Jonathan Neuhoff, Benjamin M Davies, Andreas K Demetriades, Ehab Shiban, Florian Ringel
{"title":"Variation of practice in the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis: a European Association of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Section study.","authors":"Andreas Kramer, Santhosh Gouthaman Thavarajasingam, Jonathan Neuhoff, Benjamin M Davies, Andreas K Demetriades, Ehab Shiban, Florian Ringel","doi":"10.3171/2024.2.SPINE231202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The incidence of spondylodiscitis is rising across Europe, but the ideal treatment approach remains controversial. The choice between conservative and surgical therapies is ambiguous due to a lack of consensus. This European survey aimed to explore prevailing treatment paradigms for primary spondylodiscitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Spine neurosurgeons were invited through the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Section's mailing list to participate in an online survey featuring 7 spondylodiscitis case vignettes. Along with general management queries, specific patient treatment questions were posed. Data analysis was performed using R software (version 4.0.4). The index of qualitative variation (IQV) was calculated to quantify the variability in responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 130 responses were collected, comprising 86.9% board-certified neurosurgeons and 13.1% neurosurgeons in training, with an average of 11 years of practice. Most respondents performed 50-100 spine surgeries annually, with 66.7% specializing in spine surgery. An epidural empyema causing pronounced neurological deficits influenced 95.4% toward a surgical intervention, and mild neurological deficits and challenges in pathogen identification prompted 72.3% and 80%, respectively, to consider a surgical approach. Vertebral body destruction and spinal deformity directed 60% and 66.2%, respectively, toward surgery, whereas advanced age and comorbidities had a much smaller impact-5.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Clinical vignettes highlighted a predominant preference for conservative treatment in specific cases, with statistical significance (p < 0.05). The IQV values evaluated for each question ranged from 0.88 to 0.99, indicating low agreement across all questions among respondents. When examining the average IQV by country, intercountry variations in IQV were substantial, as illustrated by the diverse range of overall mean IQV values (0.15-0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings reveal a significant variability in the treatment of spondylodiscitis among European neurosurgeons, with most neurosurgeons opting for conservative treatment. These diverse strategies, both between and within countries, highlight an imperative for evidence-backed guidelines and consensus statements for this grave condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"263-272"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.2.SPINE231202","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The incidence of spondylodiscitis is rising across Europe, but the ideal treatment approach remains controversial. The choice between conservative and surgical therapies is ambiguous due to a lack of consensus. This European survey aimed to explore prevailing treatment paradigms for primary spondylodiscitis.

Methods: Spine neurosurgeons were invited through the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Section's mailing list to participate in an online survey featuring 7 spondylodiscitis case vignettes. Along with general management queries, specific patient treatment questions were posed. Data analysis was performed using R software (version 4.0.4). The index of qualitative variation (IQV) was calculated to quantify the variability in responses.

Results: A total of 130 responses were collected, comprising 86.9% board-certified neurosurgeons and 13.1% neurosurgeons in training, with an average of 11 years of practice. Most respondents performed 50-100 spine surgeries annually, with 66.7% specializing in spine surgery. An epidural empyema causing pronounced neurological deficits influenced 95.4% toward a surgical intervention, and mild neurological deficits and challenges in pathogen identification prompted 72.3% and 80%, respectively, to consider a surgical approach. Vertebral body destruction and spinal deformity directed 60% and 66.2%, respectively, toward surgery, whereas advanced age and comorbidities had a much smaller impact-5.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Clinical vignettes highlighted a predominant preference for conservative treatment in specific cases, with statistical significance (p < 0.05). The IQV values evaluated for each question ranged from 0.88 to 0.99, indicating low agreement across all questions among respondents. When examining the average IQV by country, intercountry variations in IQV were substantial, as illustrated by the diverse range of overall mean IQV values (0.15-0.85).

Conclusions: The findings reveal a significant variability in the treatment of spondylodiscitis among European neurosurgeons, with most neurosurgeons opting for conservative treatment. These diverse strategies, both between and within countries, highlight an imperative for evidence-backed guidelines and consensus statements for this grave condition.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
化脓性脊椎盘炎治疗方法的差异:欧洲神经外科协会脊柱分会的一项研究。
目的:脊柱盘炎的发病率在欧洲不断上升,但理想的治疗方法仍存在争议。由于缺乏共识,保守疗法和手术疗法之间的选择并不明确。这项欧洲调查旨在探讨原发性脊椎盘炎的主流治疗模式:通过欧洲神经外科协会脊柱分会的邮件列表邀请脊柱神经外科医生参与在线调查,调查包括 7 个脊柱盘炎病例。除了一般管理问题外,还提出了具体的患者治疗问题。数据分析使用 R 软件(4.0.4 版)进行。计算了定性变异指数(IQV),以量化回答的变异性:结果:共收集到 130 份回复,其中 86.9% 的回复者拥有神经外科医师资格,13.1% 的回复者正在接受培训,平均从业年限为 11 年。大多数受访者每年进行 50-100 例脊柱手术,其中 66.7% 擅长脊柱手术。硬膜外积液导致明显神经功能缺损的受访者中,95.4%的受访者倾向于手术治疗,而轻度神经功能缺损和病原体识别困难分别促使72.3%和80%的受访者考虑手术治疗。椎体破坏和脊柱畸形分别导致60%和66.2%的患者选择手术治疗,而高龄和合并症的影响要小得多,分别为5.4%和9.2%。临床小故事凸显了在特定病例中人们更倾向于保守治疗,并具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。每个问题的 IQV 值从 0.88 到 0.99 不等,表明受访者对所有问题的认同度较低。在研究各国的平均 IQV 时,各国之间的 IQV 差异很大,总体平均 IQV 值的不同范围(0.15-0.85)就说明了这一点:结论:研究结果表明,欧洲神经外科医生在治疗脊柱盘炎症方面存在很大差异,大多数神经外科医生选择保守治疗。这些国家之间和国家内部的不同策略凸显了针对这一严重疾病制定循证指南和共识声明的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
期刊最新文献
Cage migration in multilevel stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: incidence and clinical correlations. A validation defense of the PROMIS-10 in anterior cervical spine surgery. Reassessing the minimal clinically important differences of patient-reported outcomes in cervical myelopathy: a patient-centered approach from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Letter to the Editor. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as a preoperative tool in spine tumor surgery. Age as a predictor of patient-reported outcomes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1