A Comparison of Negative Pressure and Conventional Therapy in Spine Infections: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in treating primary spinal infections. Methods: Patients who underwent surgical treatment for primary spinal infection between January 2018 and June 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into two groups based on the type of surgery: one that underwent negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and another that underwent conventional surgery (CVSG-Posterior debridement, bone grafting, fusion, and internal fixation in one stage). The two groups were compared in terms of the total operation time, total blood loss, total postoperative drainage, postoperative pain score, time for the postoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) to return to normal, postoperative complications, treatment time, and recurrence rate. Results: A total of 43 cases of spinal infection were evaluated, with 19 in the NPWT group and 24 in the CVSG group. The NPWT group had a superior postoperative drainage volume, antibiotic use time, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP recovery times, VAS score at 3 months after the operation, and cure rate at 3 months after operation compared with the CVSG group. There were no significant variations in the total hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. Conclusions: This study supports the use of negative pressure in the treatment of a primary spinal infection and indicates that it has a notably better short-term clinical effect than conventional surgery. Additionally, its mid-term cure rate and recurrence rate are more desirable than those of conventional treatments.

Keywords

• spondylodiscitis
• clinical outcome
• negative pressure wound therapy(NPWT)
• spinal infection