Predicting the need for surgical intervention in patients with spondylodiscitis: the Brighton Spondylodiscitis Score (BSDS)

  • Nageswary Appalanaidu
  • Roozbeh Shafafy
  • Christopher Gee
  • Kit Brogan
  • Shuaib Karmani
  • Giuseppe Morassi
  • Sherief ElsayedEmail author
Original Article



Spondylodiscitis represents a condition with significant heterogeneity. A significant proportion of patients are managed without surgical intervention, but there remains a group where surgery is mandated. The aim of our study was to create a scoring system to guide clinicians as to which patients with spondylodiscitis may require surgery.


A retrospective analysis of patients presenting to our institution with a diagnosis of spondylodiscitis between 2005 and 2014 was performed. Data for 35 variables, characterised as potential risk factors for requiring surgical treatment of spondylodiscitis, were collected. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the predictability of each. A prediction model was constructed, and the model was externally validated using a second series of patients from 2014 to 2015 meeting the same standards as the first population. The predicted odds were calculated for every patient in the data set. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created, and the area under curve (AUC) was determined.


Sixty-five patients were identified. Surgery was deemed necessary in 21 patients. Six predictors: distant site infection, medical comorbidities, the immunocompromised patient, MRI findings, anatomical location and neurology, were found to be the most consistent risk factors for surgical intervention. An internally validated scoring system with an AUC of 0.83 and an Akaike information criterion (AIC) of 115.2 was developed. External validation using a further 20 patients showed an AUC of 0.71 at 95% confidence interval of 0.50–0.88.


A new scoring system has been developed which can help guide clinicians as to when surgical intervention may be required. Further prospective analyses are required to validate this proposed scoring system.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Predict Spondylodiscitis Treatment 


Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5775_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (183 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 182 kb)


  1. 1.
    Zimmerli W (2010) Clinical practice. Vertebral osteomyelitis. N Engl J Med 362(11):1022–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skaf GS et al (2010) Pyogenic spondylodiscitis: an overview. J Infect Public Health 3(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zarghooni K, Röllinghoff M, Sobottke R, Eysel P (2012) Treatment of spondylodiscitis. Int Orthop 36(2):405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Digby JM, Kersley JB (1979) Pyogenic non-tuberculous spinal infection: an analysis of thirty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 61(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beronius M, Bergman B, Andersson R (2001) Vertebral osteomyelitis in Göteborg, Sweden: a retrospective study of patients during 1990–95. Scand J Infect Dis 33(7):527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheung WY, Luk KD (2012) Pyogenic spondylitis. Int Orthop 36(2):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duarte RM, Vaccaro AR (2013) Spinal infection: state of the art and management algorithm. Eur Spine J 22(12):2787–2799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cervan AM, JeD Colmenero, Del Arco A, Villanueva F, Guerado E (2012) Spondylodiscitis in patients under haemodyalisis. Int Orthop 36(2):421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rutges JP, Kempen DH, van Dijk M, Oner FC (2016) Outcome of conservative and surgical treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis: a systematic literature review. Eur Spine J 25(4):983–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sobottke R, Seifert H, Fätkenheuer G, Schmidt M, Gossmann A, Eysel P (2008) Current diagnosis and treatment of spondylodiscitis. Dtsch Arztebl Inl 105(10):181–187Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerado E, Cerván AM (2012) Surgical treatment of spondylodiscitis. An update. Int Orthop 36(2):413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gouliouris T, Aliyu SH, Brown NM (2010) Spondylodiscitis: update on diagnosis and management. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(3):11–24Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Graeff JJ, Paulino Pereira NR, van Wulfften Palthe OD, Nelson SB, Schwab JH (2017) Prognostic factors for failure of antibiotic treatment in patients with osteomyelitis of the spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(17):1339–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roßbach BP et al (2014) Surgical treatment of patients with spondylodiscitis and neurological deficits caused by spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a predictor of clinical outcome. J Spinal Disord Tech 27(7):395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kothari MK, Shah KC, Tikoo A, Nene AM (2016) Surgical management in elderly patients with tuberculous spondylodiscitis: ten year mortality audit study. Asian Spine J 10(5):915–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linhardt O, Matussek J, Refior HJ, Krödel A (2007) Long-term results of ventro-dorsal versus ventral instrumentation fusion in the treatment of spondylitis. Int Orthop 31(1):113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozturk C, Aydinli U, Vural R, Sehirlioglu A, Mutlu M (2007) Simultaneous versus sequential one-stage combined anterior and posterior spinal surgery for spinal infections (outcomes and complications). Int Orthop 31(3):363–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pee YH, Park JD, Choi YG, Lee SH (2008) Anterior debridement and fusion followed by posterior pedicle screw fixation in pyogenic spondylodiscitis: autologous iliac bone strut versus cage. J Neurosurg Spine 8(5):405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Si M, Yang ZP, Li ZF, Yang Q, Li JM (2013) Anterior versus posterior fixation for the treatment of lumbar pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis. Orthopedics 36(6):831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee BH, Park JO, Kim HS, Lee HM, Cho BW, Moon SH (2014) Transpedicular curettage and drainage versus combined anterior and posterior surgery in infectious spondylodiscitis. Indian J Orthop 48(1):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin TY et al (2014) Comparison of two-stage open versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in treating pyogenic spondylodiscitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schomacher M et al (2014) Application of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages in the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 127:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Včelák J, Chomiak J, Toth L (2014) Surgical treatment of lumbar spondylodiscitis: a comparison of two methods. Int Orthop 38(7):1425–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pola E et al (2018) Multidisciplinary management of pyogenic spondylodiscitis: epidemiological and clinical features, prognostic factors and long-term outcomes in 207 patients. Eur Spine J 27(2):229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sapico FL, Montgomerie JZ (1979) Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: report of nine cases and review of the literature. Rev Infect Dis 1(5):754–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shetty AP, Viswanathan VK, Kanna RM, Shanmuganathan R (2017) Tubercular spondylodiscitis in elderly is a more severe disease: a report of 66 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 26(12):3178–3186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shah K, Kothari M, Nene A (2018) Role of frailty scoring in the assessment of perioperative mortality in surgical management of tuberculous spondylodiscitis in the elderly. G Spine J 1:1–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akiyama T, Chikuda H, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Fushimi K, Saita K (2013) Incidence and risk factors for mortality of vertebral osteomyelitis: a retrospective analysis using the Japanese diagnosis procedure combination database. BMJ Open 3(3):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS TrustBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations