Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 2996–3002 | Cite as

Is pseudarthrosis after spinal instrumentation caused by a chronic infection?

  • Søren Ohrt-NissenEmail author
  • Blaine Fritz
  • Lars Valentin
  • Kasper Nørskov Kragh
  • Claus Manniche
  • Benny Dahl
  • Thomas Bjarnsholt
Original Article

Abstract

Hypothesis

To assess whether a chronic bacterial infection is present in a subset of patients with pseudarthrosis after instrumented spinal fusion.

Methods

This was a prospective diagnostic study including adult patients with previous instrumented spinal fusion. Patients underwent revision surgery for either pseudarthrosis or other causes (e.g. implant removal, curve progression or junctional kyphosis) (control group). Five separate biopsies were randomly collected, intraoperatively, from the pseudarthrosis site and cultivated under both aerobic (5 days) and anaerobic (14 days) conditions. If cultivation was positive in at least 2/5 tissue samples, the biopsy was sectioned and stained using peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization (PNA-FISH). Confocal laser scanning microscopy was used to examine the sections and visualize bacterial aggregates.

Results

The study included 32 pseudarthrosis and 32 control patients. Cultivation yielded bacteria in at least 1/5 biopsies in 52% of patients with no difference between the groups (p = 1.0). Bacteria of the same species was found in at least 2/5 samples in seven pseudarthrosis patients and four controls (p = 0.509). Propionibacterium acnes was found in 8 of these 11 samples. Microscopy demonstrated tissue-embedded bacterial aggregates in two of these patients but with no inflammatory cells indicating an active infection. The presence of bacteria was not associated with the number of previous spinal procedures or the pre-revision fusion length (p ≥ 0.503).

Conclusions

Pseudarthrosis after instrumented spinal surgery was not significantly associated with the presence of bacteria at the pseudarthrosis site. Positive cultivation results are common after spinal instrumentation, but our results indicate that they rarely represent an organized infection.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Pseudarthrosis Non-union Spinal instrumentation Adult spinal deformity Infection 

Notes

Funding

Søren Ohrt-Nissen received an institutional research grant from K2 M outside the submitted work. Thomas Bjarnsholt received a grant from The Lundbeck Foundation outside the submitted work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Benny Dahl received consultant fees outside the submitted work from K2 M.

Ethics approval

Approval from the Ethical committee (H-6-2014-024) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (2007-41-1506) was obtained prior to the study.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6004_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (611 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 611 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA et al (2007) Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:382–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pichelmann MA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH et al (2010) Revision rates following primary adult spinal deformity surgery: six hundred forty-three consecutive patients followed-up to twenty-two years postoperative. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shah RR, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor BA (2003) Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J 12:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raizman NM, O’Brien JR, Poehling-Monaghan KL, Yu WD (2009) Pseudarthrosis of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:494–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Sansur CA et al (2009) Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures. Neurosurgery 65:409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haidar R, Najjar M, Der Boghossian A, Tabbarah Z (2010) Propionibacterium acnes causing delayed postoperative spine infection: review. Scand J Infect Dis 42:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gristina AG, Costerton JW (1985) Bacterial adherence to biomaterials and tissue. The significance of its role in clinical sepsis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dapunt U, Spranger O, Gantz S et al (2015) Are atrophic long-bone nonunions associated with low-grade infections? Ther Clin Risk Manag 11:1843–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richards BR, Emara KM (2001) Delayed infections after posterior TSRH spinal instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis: revisited. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1990–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lutz MF, Berthelot P, Fresard A et al (2005) Arthroplastic and osteosynthetic infections due to Propionibacterium acnes: a retrospective study of 52 cases, 1995–2002. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 24:739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chun DS, Baker KC, Hsu WK (2015) Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus 39:E10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kvich L, Jensen PØ, Justesen US, Bjarnsholt T (2016) Incidence of Propionibacterium acnes in initially culture-negative thioglycollate broths—a prospective cohort study at a Danish University Hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 22:941–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akgün D, Müller M, Perka C, Winkler T (2018) The serum level of C-reactive protein alone cannot be used for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections, especially in those caused by organisms of low virulence. Bone Jt J 100B:1482–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Portillo ME, Alier A, Horcajada JP et al (2017) C-reactive protein may misdiagnose prosthetic joint infections, particularly chronic and low-grade infections. Int Orthop 41:1315–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eickhardt S, Kragh KN, Schrøder S et al (2015) Autofluorescence in samples obtained from chronic biofilm infections—“all that glitters is not gold”. Pathog Dis 73:193–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ohrt-Nissen S, Fritz B, Walbom J et al (2018) Bacterial biofilms: a possible mechanism for chronic infection in patients with lumbar disc herniation—a prospective proof-of-concept study using fluorescence in situ hybridization. APMIS 126:440–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leitner L, Malaj I, Sadoghi P et al (2018) Pedicle screw loosening is correlated to chronic subclinical deep implant infection: a retrospective database analysis. Eur Spine J 27:2529–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shifflett GD, Bjerke-Kroll BT, Nwachukwu BU et al (2016) Microbiologic profile of infections in presumed aseptic revision spine surgery. Eur Spine J 25:3902–3907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Callanan T, Lebl D, Cammisa F et al (2016) Occult infection in patients who have undergone spinal surgery with instrumentation. Spine J 16:132–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gelalis LD, Arnaoutoglou CM, Politis AN, Batzaleksis NA, Katonis PG, Xenakis T (2011) Bacterial wound contamination during simple and complex spinal procedures. A prospective clinical study. Spine J 11:1042–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patrick S, McDowell A (2013) Propionibacterium acnes: an emerging pathogen in biomaterial-associated infections. Biomater Assoc Infect 2013:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malic S, Hill KE, Hayes A et al (2009) Detection and identification of specific bacteria in wound biofilms using peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization (PNA FISH). Microbiology 155:2603–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Højby N et al (2014) PNA-based fluorescence in situ hybridization for identification of bacteria in clinical samples Mustafa. Methods Mol Biol 1211:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stylianakis A, Schinas G, Thomaidis P et al (2018) Combination of conventional culture, vial culture, and broad-range PCR of sonication fluid for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 92:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Portillo M, Salvadó M, Alier A et al (2014) Advantages of sonication fluid culture for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J Infect 69:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sambri A, Maso A, Storni E et al (2019) Sonication improves the diagnosis of megaprosthetic infections. Orthopedics 42:28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li H-K, Bose D, Matthews PC et al (2019) Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infection. N Engl J Med 380:425–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jakobsen TH, Eickhardt SR, Gheorghe AG et al (2018) Implants induce a new niche for microbiomes. Apmis 126:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spine Unit, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryRigshospitalet, University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Clinical InstituteUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryTexas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Clinical MicrobiologyRigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations