BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous spine biopsies for spondylodiscitis have been long discussed due to the low microbiologic yield. This retrospective study evaluated factors of cone beam computed tomography-guided spine biopsies that may affect microbiologic yield. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed percutaneous spine biopsies under cone beam computed tomography for spondylodiscitis performed from January 2015-December 2020. Clinical and technical features such as the time from initial symptoms to biopsy, level biopsied, biopsy needle type/gauge, technical approach, radiation dose, technical success and microbiologic yield were recorded. Pre-procedure magnetic resonance imaging findings were also recorded such as the number of vertebral bodies involved, and disc morphology. Univariate logistic regression analysis and Receiver operating characteristic analysis were performed to assess any relationship between relevant factors and positive cultures. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients underwent cone beam computed tomography-guided biopsies for spondylodiscitis, with resulted positive cultures in 18 patients (36%). The mean time from the initial referral of spinal symptoms to procedure in the positive culture group was the most influential finding for positive cultures (odds ratio 56.3, p < 0.001). Among magnetic resonance imaging findings, thin or degenerated intervertebral disc was a negative factor for positive cultures (odds ratio 0.09, p = 0.006). Univariate analysis showed that percutaneous approach (transpedicular vs posterolateral/interlaminar) needle size (11-13 g vs 16-18G, odds ratio 1.2, p = 0.7) and site of biopsy (disc vs bone vs disc plus endplate) did not significantly affect the microbiologic yield of spine biopsy. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous cone beam computed tomography-guided biopsy for spondylodiscitis is a reliable and safe technique and its microbiologic yield may increase if biopsy is performed within the acute phase of infection.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous spine biopsies for spondylodiscitis have been long discussed due to the low microbiologic yield. This retrospective study evaluated factors of cone beam computed tomography-guided spine biopsies that may affect microbiologic yield. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed percutaneous spine biopsies under cone beam computed tomography for spondylodiscitis performed from January 2015-December 2020. Clinical and technical features such as the time from initial symptoms to biopsy, level biopsied, biopsy needle type/gauge, technical approach, radiation dose, technical success and microbiologic yield were recorded. Pre-procedure magnetic resonance imaging findings were also recorded such as the number of vertebral bodies involved, and disc morphology. Univariate logistic regression analysis and Receiver operating characteristic analysis were performed to assess any relationship between relevant factors and positive cultures. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients underwent cone beam computed tomography-guided biopsies for spondylodiscitis, with resulted positive cultures in 18 patients (36%). The mean time from the initial referral of spinal symptoms to procedure in the positive culture group was the most influential finding for positive cultures (odds ratio 56.3, p < 0.001). Among magnetic resonance imaging findings, thin or degenerated intervertebral disc was a negative factor for positive cultures (odds ratio 0.09, p = 0.006). Univariate analysis showed that percutaneous approach (transpedicular vs posterolateral/interlaminar) needle size (11-13 g vs 16-18G, odds ratio 1.2, p = 0.7) and site of biopsy (disc vs bone vs disc plus endplate) did not significantly affect the microbiologic yield of spine biopsy. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous cone beam computed tomography-guided biopsy for spondylodiscitis is a reliable and safe technique and its microbiologic yield may increase if biopsy is performed within the acute phase of infection.
Authors: D K Filippiadis; C Binkert; O Pellerin; R T Hoffmann; A Krajina; P L Pereira Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Connie Y Chang; F Joseph Simeone; Sandra B Nelson; Atul K Taneja; Ambrose J Huang Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: My-Linh Nguyen; Bhargavi Guddanti; Marcos C Schechter; Monica Umpierrez; Philip Wong; Felix M Gonzalez; Adam D Singer Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Adam N Wallace; Rafael A Pacheco; Ross Vyhmeister; Anderanik Tomasian; Randy O Chang; Jack W Jennings Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Alessandro Cannavale; Mariangela Santoni; Piergiorgio Nardis; Pierleone Lucatelli; Mario Corona; Giuseppe Cannavale; Carlo Catalano; Paolo Ricci Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 6.313