Skip to main content
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection logoLink to Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
. 2022 Jan 27;7(1):23–32. doi: 10.5194/jbji-7-23-2022

Diagnosis of vertebral osteomyelitis

Julian Maamari 1, Aaron J Tande 1, Felix Diehn 2, Don Bambino Geno Tai 1, Elie F Berbari 1,
PMCID: PMC8814828  PMID: 35136714

Abstract

Native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVO) is a potentially fatal infection which has seen a gradual increase in its incidence over the past decades. The infection is insidious, presenting with symptoms of back pain. Fever is present in about 60 % of patients. Prompt diagnosis of NVO is important to prevent the development of complications. Numerous laboratory and imaging tools can be deployed to accurately establish the diagnosis. Imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance, nuclear imaging, and computed tomography are essential in diagnosing NVO but can also be useful in image-guided biopsies. Laboratory tools include routine blood tests, inflammatory markers, and routine culture techniques of aspirated specimens. Recent advances in molecular techniques can assist in identifying offending pathogen(s). In this review, we detail the arsenal of techniques that can be utilized to reach a diagnosis of NVO.

1. Introduction

Native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVO), also termed spondylodiscitis, is a potentially fatal condition that constitutes roughly 3 %–5 % of all osteomyelitis cases (Sobottke et al., 2008). Its incidence has increased from 2.9 cases to 5.4 cases per 100 000 people in the United States between 1998 and 2013, owing partly to a demographic shift towards an older and immunocompromised population (Issa et al., 2018). Due to relative rarity and nonspecific symptoms, delays in the diagnosis of NVO still happen despite the expanding use and availability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A prospective study on NVO found a mean diagnostic delay of 45.5 d from the onset of symptoms (range 2–280 d). Other studies have suggested even longer delays, with variations attributed to the causative organism (Jean et al., 2017).

NVO is most commonly the result of hematogenous seeding of the avascular disc. Other causes include contiguous spread and direct inoculation during surgery (Zimmerli, 2010). The most common symptom at the time of presentation is back pain (Mylona et al., 2009). Although highly sensitive (86 %), this symptom lacks specificity, particularly among older adults. Other symptoms of NVO, such as fever (60 %) and neurologic deficits, including radiculopathy, urinary retention, limb weakness, paralysis, dysesthesia, or sensory loss (34 %) are less common (Mylona et al., 2009). Routinely performed inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are sensitive but also lack specificity (Zimmerli, 2010). Therefore, maintaining a high index of suspicion is crucial for establishing the diagnosis of NVO.

There are no widely agreed upon diagnostic criteria for diagnosing NVO, particularly in cases with negative blood and biopsy cultures. Instead, NVO is diagnosed through a compatible overall clinical picture, combined with suggestive imaging and laboratory findings (Berbari et al., 2015). Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to decrease the risk of complications, neurologic deficits, and mortality (Gupta et al., 2014). This review summarizes the literature on the various diagnostic modalities employed to diagnose NVO.

2. Laboratory studies

Inflammatory biomarkers, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), are the most well-studied screening tests for NVO in the setting of back pain. (Berbari et al., 2015). Both markers have been found to have a sensitivity in the range of 94 %–100 %, particularly when used in combination (Berbari et al., 2015). Logistic regression of a cohort of 72 patients with suspected NVO undergoing image-guided biopsy revealed that the combination of ESR, CRP, and the presence of fever has the highest area under the curve (AUC  =  0.72) for predicting a diagnosis of NVO. Enhancement of the predictive yield was observed when MRI results were factored in (Kihira et al., 2020). ESR is typically more elevated in common bacterial NVO than in tuberculous NVO, with more than 91 % of NVO patients having an initial ESR value  >  50 mm h -1 (Waheed et al., 2019). One study suggested that using a score that encompasses CRP, pain severity grading, and imaging findings may be a useful tool in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with NVO (Homagk et al., 2019). CRP and ESR may also help predict relapse following treatment (Ahn et al., 2020; McHenry et al., 2002; Chiang et al., 2019; Carragee et al., 1997). Serum white blood cell (WBC) count has low sensitivity and specificity. Leukocytosis is often absent or only mildly elevated (An and Seldomridge, 2006). Apart from CRP and ESR, no novel biomarkers have paved their way into clinical practice in recent decades. Efforts to identify other reliable biomarkers are warranted, especially in the setting of partially treated NVO or infection with an indolent organism.

3. Imaging modalities

Although MRI is the preferred imaging modality for the diagnosis of NVO, we recommend obtaining a plain radiograph of the spine as an initial test (Diehn, 2012). Plain radiography has low sensitivity at the early stages of the disease, but it may help identify other causes of back pain and establish spinal enumeration. Subtle findings, such as loss of definition, erosions, and irregularity of the vertebral end plates, typically lag behind the disease, only appearing 2 to 8 weeks after the onset of symptoms (Govender, 2005). If present on a prior radiograph, the disappearance of a previously seen degenerative gas in the disc space (disc space vacuum phenomenon) can be suggestive of NVO, particularly if it is associated with disc space widening and/or end plate erosions.

MRI is the preferred imaging modality for diagnosing NVO (Diehn, 2012). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI in diagnosing NVO are estimated at 97 %, 92 %, and 94 %, respectively (Table 1; Modic et al., 1985). MRI should ideally be performed with intravenous gadolinium contrast. It increases the sensitivity and specificity of the MRI, including a better depiction of a possible extension of infection to the epidural and paravertebral spaces. T2-weighted and post-contrast T1-weighted images should be acquired with fat suppression. A hallmark of the disease is the presence of marrow-replacing signal abnormalities, seen best on T1-weighted non-contrast images. The normal marrow is hyperintense compared with the intervertebral discs, whereas abnormal marrow is relatively hypointense. Such an abnormal marrow signal on T1-weighted images typically correlates with T2 hyperintensity, which is best seen on fat-suppressed T2-weighted images, and enhancement, which is best seen on post-contrast fat-suppressed T1-weighted images. (Berbari et al., 2015; Prodi et al., 2016). The disc itself may also be abnormally T2 hyperintense or enhancing. Although MRI can detect bone marrow edema as early as 48 h after disease onset, early findings may be nonspecific or atypical; the primary confounders are active sub-end plate degenerative changes (so-called Modic type I changes). In these patients, an MRI can be repeated in 2–4 weeks to further evaluate the diagnosis of NVO (Kamiya et al., 2019). The inclusion of diffusion-weighted imaging on MRI is sometimes used to help increase the specificity of bone marrow edema for NVO (Patel et al., 2014). Routine follow-up MRI for clinically improving patients on treatment is unnecessary, as the imaging resolution can lag behind clinical improvement (Kowalski et al., 2007). At times, MRI may provide clues to the causative organism (Hong et al., 2009); for example, a multilevel process with subligamentous extension and prominent paraspinal component with relative sparing of the disc spaces may suggest Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Table 1.

Sensitivity and specificity of CT scan and MRI in the detection of vertebral osteomyelitis.

Study authors Year CT scan
MRI
    Sensitivity Specificity Study type Sensitivity Specificity
Modic et al. 1985 96 % 92 %
Osenbach et al. 1990 100 % Could not assess 100 % Could not assess
Bateman and Pevzner 1995 92 % Could not assess 86 % Could not assess
Torda et al. 1995 84 % Could not assess 100 % Could not assess
Dagirmanjian et al. 1996 95 % Could not assess
Carragee et al. 1997 53 % Could not assess
Chelsom and Solberg 1998 88 % Could not assess 100 % Could not assess
Fernandez et al. 2000 95 % Could not assess
Love et al. 2000 91 % 77 %
Nolla et al. 2002 100 % Could not assess 100 % Could not assess
Gratz et al. 2002 100 % 87 % PET/CT 100 % 85 %
McHenry et al. 2002 74 % Could not assess
Ledermann et al. 2003 100 % Could not assess
Zarrouk et al. 2006 100 % Could not assess
Fuster et al. 2012 89 % 88 % PET/CT
Nakahara et al. 2015 100 % 79 % PET/CT 76 % 42 %
Smids et al. 2017 96 % 95 % PET/CT 67 % 84 %
Tamm and Abele 2017 94 % 100 %
Kouijzer et al. 2018 100 % 83 % PET/CT 100 % 92 %

Computed tomography (CT) is another imaging technique that can help diagnose NVO (Table 1). CT can be beneficial in cases where Modic type I changes are a primary consideration based on MRI, and the clinical findings do not strongly suggest an infection. In such patients, the absence of end plate cortical erosive changes makes NVO is less likely. CT is superior to MRI with respect to the evaluation of cortical bone and depicting the disc space vacuum phenomenon. In rare cases, gas in the disc is related to a gas-forming organism or other anatomic abnormality, such as a fistula with the gastrointestinal tract (Diehn, 2012).

Nuclear imaging techniques have also been employed successfully to diagnose NVO (Prodi et al., 2016). They may be the alternative in cases with severe degenerative arthritis, potential neuropathic arthropathy (Charcot spine), or when MRI is contraindicated (Love et al., 2000). Scintigraphy with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using Technetium-99m ( 99m Tc) and Gallium-67 ( 67 Ga) tracers are the most widely used methods. Studies showed that 99m Tc scintigraphy has high sensitivity (90 %) but moderate specificity. Combining the two techniques increases the sensitivity, with some studies suggesting that 67 Ga or 99m Tc scanning alone may be insufficient to diagnose NVO. These studies demonstrated that these techniques were equivalent to MRI (Modic et al., 1985; Maurer et al., 1981; Hadjipavlou et al., 1998; Tamm and Abele, 2017). Combining both techniques is the standard of care if used in place of MRI (Tamm and Abele, 2017). Tracer uptake that is greater or anatomically discordant on the gallium (inflammation detecting) than on the technetium (metabolism detecting) portion of the combined nuclear medicine study is the finding which most strongly and accurately suggests NVO (Diehn, 2012). Positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) has also been evaluated for the diagnosis of NVO. The literature suggests that the technique may be more accurate than combined 67 Ga and 99m Tc scans with similar accuracy compared to MRI (Fuster et al., 2012; Kouijzer et al., 2018). The advantages of PET/CT include its superior spatial resolution and the better detection of metastatic infection. In addition, a CT scan itself may hold an advantage in detecting sequestra, cloacas, involucra, or intraosseous gas, which may form in chronic NVO (Pineda et al., 2009); however, MRI remains a superior imaging modality in detecting small intraspinal (e.g., epidural) and paraspinal abscesses (Tables 1, 2; Fuster et al., 2012; Kouijzer et al., 2018).

Table 2.

Sensitivity and specificity of nuclear imaging techniques in the detection of vertebral osteomyelitis.

Nuclear imaging
Study authors
Year
Sensitivity
Specificity
Comments
Bruschwein et al.
1980
90 %
85 %
Gallium bone scan
Maurer et al.
1981
92 %
94 %
Technetium bone scan; three-phase scan
Modic et al. 1985 91 % 78 % Technetium bone scan
 
 
93 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan
Osenbach et al.
1990
100 %
Could not assess
Technetium bone scan
Patzakis et al.
1991
100 %
Could not assess
Technetium bone scan
Nolla-Solé et al. 1992 90 % Could not assess Technetium bone scan
 
 
100 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan
Lisbona et al. 1993 96 % Could not assess Technetium bone scan
 
 
100 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan
Torda et al. 1995 87 % Could not assess Technetium bone scan
 
 
100 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan
Bateman and Pevzner 1995 91 % Could not assess Technetium bone scan
 
 
100 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan
Chelsom and Solberg
1998
85 %
Could not assess
Technetium bone scan
Hadjipavlou et al.
1998
100 %
100 %
Gallium bone scan
Gratz et al. 2000 93 % Could not assess Technetium bone scan; planar and SPECT
 
 
81 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan; planar and SPECT
Love et al. 2000 82 % 23 % Technetium bone scan; planar and SPECT
    36 % 92 % Technetium bone scan (three phase)
 
 
91 %
92 %
Gallium bone scan; planar and SPECT
Nolla et al. 2002 96 % Could not assess Technetium bone scan
 
 
91 %
Could not assess
Gallium bone scan
Gratz et al. 2002 78 % 50 % Technetium bone scan
 
 
71 %
61 %
Gallium bone scan
Fuster et al.
2012
78 %
81 %
Gallium bone scan; combined with bone scan and SPECT
Tamm and Abele 2017 94 % 100 % Gallium bone scan or technetium bone scan and SPECT

4. Biopsy methods and microbiology

Optimal management relies on the isolation of the causative organism. The initial step is collecting bacterial blood cultures, which are positive in approximately 58 % of cases (range 30 %–78 %) (Mylona et al., 2009; Zimmerli, 2010). The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend obtaining two sets of bacterial blood cultures (aerobic and anaerobic) in patients with suspected NVO. When positive, blood cultures may obviate the need for biopsies (Berbari et al., 2015). However, the yield of blood cultures may be affected by previous antibiotic therapy. Most cases of NVO that result from hematogenous seeding are monomicrobial. Other causes associated with contiguous spread or direct inoculation tend to be more polymicrobial (Mavrogenis et al., 2017). If infection with a typical organism – i.e., Staphylococcus aureus complex, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, or Brucella species – is established with blood cultures or serologic testing, no further investigation may be necessary (Berbari et al., 2015). An image-guided biopsy is warranted when blood cultures or serologic testing does not establish the microbiologic diagnosis (Berbari et al., 2015). The two most widely recognized methods are image-guided percutaneous biopsy and open biopsy (McNamara et al., 2017). Percutaneous biopsies and aspirations are typically guided by CT or fluoroscopy (Kim et al., 2013). These sampling procedures can target the bone, disc, and adjacent infected spinal sites such as facet joints or paraspinal soft tissues, including abscesses. Intraspinal sampling (e.g., of epidural abscesses) can be performed if there are accessible dorsal, relatively large components to the intraspinal collections. Otherwise, it is not routinely performed due to the risk of inadvertent dural puncture. Percutaneous biopsies have variable microbiologic yields of 30.4 %–91 % (Chew and Kline, 2001; Pupaibool et al., 2015). Two meta-analyses calculated the cumulative yield between 48 % and 52 %, significantly lower than the 76 % yield in open biopsies (McNamara et al., 2017; Pupaibool et al., 2015). Factors that may increase the yield of the image-guided procedure include an elevated CRP; the use of a lower-gauge needle, increased number of specimens obtained; and, if present, the aspiration of a fluid collection (Husseini et al., 2020; Gras et al., 2014). The impact of prior antibiotic use on image-guided specimens' culture yield remains uncertain, and the findings of existing studies are conflicting: some studies indicate that prior antimicrobial therapy negatively impacted the yield, whereas some indicate no effect. The studies were limited in their retrospective design, sample size, and selection bias (Wong et al., 2021). If the initial biopsy is nondiagnostic, a second percutaneous biopsy may be warranted, although the exact increased yield is unclear (Gras et al., 2014). A repeat biopsy should be delayed at least 3 d after the initial biopsy, at which time the majority of positive cultures from the first should have resulted (Yeh et al., 2020). Alternatively, when the first image-guided biopsy is negative, it is reasonable to proceed with an open biopsy as the next step (Fig. 1; Berbari et al., 2015).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Approach to diagnosing a patient with native vertebral osteomyelitis.

Specimens should be sent for both microbiologic and histopathologic examination. Histopathology reveals the presence of acute inflammatory cells in 69 %–95 % of cases (Iwata et al., 2019; Heyer et al., 2012). Biopsy specimens should be sent for aerobic and anaerobic bacterial cultures. Fungal, zoonotic, and mycobacterial etiologies should be considered in patients with culture-negative NVO, immunocompromising conditions, or risk factors such as living in endemic areas (Berbari et al., 2015; Mavrogenis et al., 2017). Patients who are immunocompromised are particularly susceptible to non-endemic fungal organisms such as Candida spp., Aspergillus spp., and Cryptococcus neoformans (Hong et al., 2009; Salaffi et al., 2021). C. albicans is responsible for more than half of candidal NVO cases, although Nakaseomyces glabrata – previously C. glabrata – is also becoming more common. Modern bacterial blood culture techniques are capable of identifying Candida species. Aspergillus NVO may mimic tuberculous NVO particularly when the intervertebral disc is spared, with the most commonly isolated species being A. fumigatus (Salaffi et al., 2021). In patients at risk of fungal infections, fungal serologies, antigen detection assays, and fungal blood cultures may also be useful (Berbari et al., 2015). Proving a diagnosis of NVO in these cases requires documenting a positive culture or histology result, a clinical picture compatible with NVO, and radiologic evidence of the infection (De Pauw et al., 2008). Coccidioidomycosis and blastomycosis are the most important endemic fungal infections that may cause NVO. C. immitis localizes to the bone in more than 50 % of diffuse cases, whereas bone involvement is noted in 14 %–60 % of diffuse blastomycosis, with the spine being the most commonly involved location (Salaffi et al., 2021; Hong et al., 2009). However, serologic testing for Coccidioides and Blastomyces species may be considered if epidemiologic factors exist (Berbari et al., 2015).

For Brucella NVO, serologies and Brucella blood cultures are diagnostic tests of choice. A cutoff of  >  1 : 160 for Brucella antibodies or  >  1 : 320 for the Coombs test is considered positive (Berbari et al., 2015; Tali et al., 2015). Pott's disease (tuberculous NVO) should be suspected among patients with known or suspected tuberculosis at another site or living in areas endemic for TB. In these cases, a purified protein derivative test or an interferon- γ release assay could be helpful due to these tests' high negative predictive value (NPV) (Berbari et al., 2015; Colmenero et al., 2013). Lastly, a parasitic infection – although rare – may be present in some cases but with more unusual pathogens. Echinococcus species are parasites with a propensity to infect the bone and cause vertebral hydatid disease (Salaffi et al., 2021).

Among patients in whom targeted investigations, blood cultures, and biopsy cultures are negative, the results of other microbiologic data that correlate with the timing of onset of symptoms, such as preceding urine cultures or known colonization with resistant pathogens, can also be considered when formulating an empiric antimicrobial therapy program (Chenoweth et al., 2018). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) may be considered in selected NVO patients to rule out endocarditis as a source of infection (Behmanesh et al., 2019).

5. Mimickers of NVO

Some conditions mimic the presentation of NVO. Typical mimickers can be categorized into degenerative, inflammatory, metabolic/deposition, pseudoarthrosis, malignancy, or treatment related, including radiotherapy (Morales, 2018; Salaffi et al., 2021). These conditions are summarized in Table 3. Differentiating NVO from these entities is of utmost importance given the therapeutic and prognostic implications. The role of additional imaging, careful evaluation of images, and histopathology is invaluable in these cases (Morales, 2018). The “claw sign,” seen on diffusion-weighted MRI, was shown to be highly suggestive of Modic type 1 degenerative changes (Patel et al., 2014). In addition, the predominant involvement of one end plate also makes degenerative causes such as Schmorl's nodes more likely than an infectious etiology (Morales, 2018). When considering an inflammatory cause, clues such as multilevel involvement, subluxations, involvement of the posterior elements, and the detection of sacroiliitis would favor the diagnosis of a spondyloarthropathy (Morales, 2018).

Table 3.

Mimickers of native vertebral osteomyelitis.

Mimickers of NVO
Pathophysiology
Entity
Differentiators
Degenerative
 
  Modic type I changes
Lack of abnormal disc signal or disc hypointensity on T2-weighted MRI
  Schmorl's node
Predominant involvement of only one end plate
 
Acute symptomatic calcific discitis
Quick resolution of symptoms and MRI showing a low-signal central focal lesion in the disc
Metabolic
 
  CPPD
Pathology results or polarized light microscopy
  Spinal gout
MRI revealing spondylolisthesis, uric acid levels, or surgical sampling of suspected area
  Amyloidosis
MRI revealing a hypointense T2 signal rather than the typical edema-type signal
 
Destructive spondyloarthropathy of hemodialysis
MRI revealing severe narrowing of the intervertebral disc spaces, erosions and cystic changes of adjacent vertebral plates, and the absence of significant osteophytosis
Tumor related
 
  Metastasis
Preservation of disc space and bone expansion on MRI
  Radiation osteonecrosis
Multiple levels affected with prominent fat replacement above and below the abnormal segment
 
Sarcoidosis
Multiple levels involved; confirmed by pathology
Inflammatory
 
  Seropositive spondylitis
Pannus formation, multiple levels involved, and possible subluxations
  SAPHO
Characteristic skin manifestations and MRI features
 
Spondyloarthridites and Andersson lesions
Location of inflammatory lesions on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and spine
Miscellaneous
 
  Pseudoaneurysms CT scan or conventional angiography

CPPD represents calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystal deposition disease, and SAPHO represents synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis syndrome.

Another example is highlighted in cases of sacral osteomyelitis, where MRI cannot easily distinguish bone remodeling/fibrosis from osteomyelitis, leading to a specificity as low as 22 % despite a high sensitivity. A bone biopsy after debridement is necessary to establish the diagnosis of NVO (Wong et al., 2019). Neuropathic arthropathy (Charcot spine) can also mimic NVO; the presence of exuberant osseous debris on especially CT images can be helpful in establishing this diagnosis.

6. New modalities and molecular methods

Novel tools for imaging and microbiologic diagnosis of NVO have emerged. MRI-guided biopsies have long been limited by the resolution offered (often 0.5 T or less). Low-tesla open-magnet MRI scanners have been shown to have an 86 % sensitivity with a 100 % specificity for MRI-guided biopsies (Carrino et al., 2007). Recent advances in MRI have led to even more promising results for these biopsies, owing to the improved resolution and signal-to-noise ratios of modern scanners. However, the efficacy of this method has not been adequately examined, as opposed to CT-guided techniques (Wu et al., 2012).

Novel molecular diagnostic techniques have also garnered significant interest. Studies investigating the use of 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on suspected cases of NVO have supported its potential role in improving accuracy and time to diagnosis (Sheikh et al., 2017; Choe et al., 2014). These methods complement standard microbiologic methods, particularly difficult to identify microorganisms. Although they lack information on antimicrobial susceptibility, microorganism identification will guide antibiotic therapy (Zimmerli, 2010; Choe et al., 2014; Lecouvet et al., 2004). GeneXpert PCR for spinal tuberculosis is highly sensitive and specific ( >  95 %), with the ability to detect multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (Held et al., 2014).

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is another novel technique that has proven helpful in identifying various infectious agents. This technology allows the high-throughput sequencing of billions of nucleic acid fragments in a manner much more efficient than the classic Sanger sequencing technique (Lefterova et al., 2015). It carries the benefit of allowing timely detection of one or more pathogens simultaneously, particularly when fastidious, slow-growing or atypical bacteria are implicated (Salipante et al., 2013; Lefterova et al., 2015). Unlike culture methods, mNGS can often determine resistance genes to the molecular levels (Morcrette et al., 2018). The utility of mNGS in osteoarticular infections has been validated in a prospective study conducted on 130 samples of fluid or tissue. The study revealed a positive mNGS rate of 88.5 % compared with 69.2 % associated with culture. However, 16 pathogens isolated in cultures were missed by mNGS in the study due to various reasons. Thus, the technique is only recommended as a complementary study to culture until it is further optimized (Huang et al., 2020). Metagenomic studies are becoming more cost-effective and accurate with time. As reference databases are improved and more pathogen genomes are sequenced, its use is expected to increase and provide more utility, particularly for osteoarticular infections such as NVO (Lefterova et al., 2015; Morcrette et al., 2018).

Many institutions have recently adopted the inoculation of biopsy specimens in blood culture bottles to enhance the recovery of microorganisms. A study using the BACTEC™ 9050 culture bottles (Becton, Dickinson and Company, NJ, USA) for these specimens revealed yields similar to those previously reported in the literature (Pandita et al., 2019). It remains to be seen whether the use of these techniques will optimize the yield of NVO biopsies.

As the methods of NVO diagnosis evolve, early detection continues to be the primary goal. A high index of suspicion can direct a clinician's approach, allowing targeted testing and management. Optimal management of NVO includes accurate identification of the causative agent and treatment with targeted antimicrobial therapy followed by long-term remission. Therefore, we must conduct studies to optimize routinely used techniques, such as image-guided biopsies, and discover new tools such as metagenomic sequencing.

Disclaimer

Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Data availability

No data sets were used in this article.

Author contributions

JM, AJT, and EFB conceived the project. JM formulated the first draft. All sections were edited by JM, AJT, EFB, and DBGT. The imaging section was primarily edited by FD. The final version of the paper was reviewed, edited, and approved by all authors prior to submission.

Competing interests

Aaron Tande and Elie Berbari report personal fees from www.UpToDate.com. Elie Berbari is also on the advisory board of Debiopharm. At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of . The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor.

Review statement

This paper was edited by Parham Sendi and reviewed by two anonymous referees.

References

  1. Ahn K-S, Kang CH, Hong S-J, Kim BH, Shim E. The correlation between follow-up MRI findings and laboratory results in pyogenic spondylodiscitis. BMC Musculoskel Di. 2020;21:428. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03446-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. An HS, Seldomridge JA. Spinal Infections: Diagnostic Tests and Imaging Studies. Clin Orthop. 2006;444:27–33. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000203452.36522.97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bateman JL, Pevzner MM. SPINAL OSTEOMYELITIS: A REVIEW OF 10 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE. Orthopedics. 1995;18:561–565. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19950601-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Behmanesh B, Gessler F, Schnoes K, Dubinski D, Won S-Y, Konczalla J, Seifert V, Weise L, Setzer M. Infective endocarditis in patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis: implications for diagnosis and therapy. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46:E2. doi: 10.3171/2018.10.FOCUS18445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berbari EF, Kanj SS, Kowalski TJ, Darouiche RO, Widmer AF, Schmitt SK, Hendershot EF, Holtom PD, Huddleston PM, Petermann GW, Osmon DR. 2015 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis in Adultsa. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61:e26–e46. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruschwein DA, Brown ML, McLeod RA. Gallium Scintigraphy in the Evaluation of Disk-Space Infections: Concise Communication. J Nucl Med. 1980;21:925–927. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carragee EJ, Kim D, van der Vlugt T, Vittum D. The Clinical Use of Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate in Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis. Spine. 1997;22:2089–2093. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199709150-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carrino JA, Khurana B, Ready JE, Silverman SG, Winalski CS. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Musculoskeletal Lesions. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89:2179–2187. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chelsom J, Solberg CO. Vertebral Osteomyelitis at a Norwegian University Hospital 1987–97: Clinical Features, Laboratory Findings and Outcome. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30:147–151. doi: 10.1080/003655498750003537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chenoweth CE, Bassin BS, Mack MR, Oppenlander ME, Patel RD, Quint DJ, Seagull FJ. Vertebral Osteomyelitis, Discitis, and Spinal Epidural Abscess in Adults, Quality Department guidelines report. Michigan Medicine University of Michigan; Ann Arbor (MI): [last access: 17 January 2022]. 2018. available at: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.mclibrary.idm.oclc.org/books/NBK547443/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK547443.pdf . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chew FS, Kline MJ. Diagnostic Yield of CT-guided Percutaneous Aspiration Procedures in Suspected Spontaneous Infectious Diskitis. Radiology. 2001;218:211–214. doi: 10.1148/radiology.218.1.r01ja06211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chiang H-Y, Chung C-W, Kuo C-C, Lo Y-C, Chang W-S, Chi C-Y. First-4-week erythrocyte sedimentation rate variability predicts erythrocyte sedimentation rate trajectories and clinical course among patients with pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis. Plos One. 2019;14:e0225969. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Choe H, Aota Y, Kobayashi N, Nakamura Y, Wakayama Y, Inaba Y, Saito T. Rapid sensitive molecular diagnosis of pyogenic spinal infections using methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus-specific polymerase chain reaction and 16S ribosomal RNA gene-based universal polymerase chain reaction. Spine J. 2014;14:255–262. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Colmenero JD, Ruiz-Mesa JD, Sanjuan-Jimenez R, Sobrino B, Morata P. Establishing the diagnosis of tuberculous vertebral osteomyelitis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:579–586. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2348-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dagirmanjian A, Schils J, McHenry M, Modic MT. MR imaging of vertebral osteomyelitis revisited. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1539–1543. doi: 10.2214/ajr.167.6.8956593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, Stevens DA, Edwards JE, Calandra T, Pappas PG, Maertens J, Lortholary O, Kauffman CA, Denning DW, Patterson TF, Maschmeyer G, Bille J, Dismukes WE, Herbrecht R, Hope WW, Kibbler CC, Kullberg BJ, Marr KA, Muñoz P, Odds FC, Perfect JR, Restrepo A, Ruhnke M, Segal BH, Sobel JD, Sorrell TC, Viscoli C, Wingard JR, Zaoutis T, Bennett JE. Revised Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:1813–1821. doi: 10.1086/588660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Diehn FE. Imaging of Spine Infection. Radiol Clin N Am. 2012;50:777–798. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2012.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fernandez M, Carrol CL, Baker CJ. Discitis and Vertebral Osteomyelitis in Children: An 18-Year Review. Pediatrics. 2000;105:1299–1304. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.6.1299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fuster D, Solà O, Soriano A, Monegal A, Setoain X, Tomás X, Garcia S, Mensa J, Rubello D, Pons F. A Prospective Study Comparing Whole-Body FDG PET/CT to Combined Planar Bone Scan With 67 Ga SPECT/CT in the Diagnosis of Spondylodiskitis. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:827–832. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318262ae6c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Govender S. Spinal infections. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87-B:1454–1458. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B11.16294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gras G, Buzele R, Parienti JJ, Debiais F, Dinh A, Dupon M, Roblot F, Mulleman D, Marcelli C, Michon J, Bernard L. Microbiological diagnosis of vertebral osteomyelitis: relevance of second percutaneous biopsy following initial negative biopsy and limited yield of post-biopsy blood cultures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;33:371–375. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1965-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gratz S, Dörner J, Oestmann JW, Opitz M, Behr T, Meller J, Grabbe E, Becker W. 67 Ga-citrate and 99 Tc m -MDP for estimating the severity of vertebral osteomyelitis. Nucl Med Commun. 2000;21:111–120. doi: 10.1097/00006231-200001000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gratz S, Dörner J, Fischer U, Behr T, Béhé M, Altenvoerde G, Meller J, Grabbe E, Becker W. 18F-FDG hybrid PET in patients with suspected spondylitis. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:516–524. doi: 10.1007/s00259-001-0719-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gupta A, Kowalski TJ, Osmon DR, Enzler M, Steckelberg JM, Huddleston PM, Nassr A, Mandrekar JM, Berbari EF. Long-Term Outcome of Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Cohort Study of 260 Patients. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014;1:ofu107. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofu107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hadjipavlou AG, Cesani-Vazquez F, Villaneuva-Meyer J, Mader JT, Necessary JT, Crow W, Jensen RE, Chaljub G. The effectiveness of gallium citrate Ga 67 radionuclide imaging in vertebral osteomyelitis revisited. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 1998;27:179–183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Held M, Laubscher M, Zar HJ, Dunn RN. GeneXpert polymerase chain reaction for spinal tuberculosis: an accurate and rapid diagnostic test. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:1366–1369. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B10.34048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Heyer CM, Brus L-J, Peters SA, Lemburg SP. Efficacy of CT-guided biopsies of the spine in patients with spondylitis – an analysis of 164 procedures. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e244–e249. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Homagk L, Marmelstein D, Homagk N, Hofmann GO. SponDT (Spondylodiscitis Diagnosis and Treatment): spondylodiscitis scoring system. J Orthop Surg. 2019;14:100. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1134-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hong SH, Choi J-Y, Lee JW, Kim NR, Choi J-A, Kang HS. MR Imaging Assessment of the Spine: Infection or an Imitation? RadioGraphics. 2009;29:599–612. doi: 10.1148/rg.292085137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Huang Z, Zhang Z, Yang B, Li W, Zhang C, Fang X, Zhang C, Zhang W, Lin J. Pathogenic Detection by Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Osteoarticular Infections. Front Cell Infect Mi. 2020;10:471. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Husseini JS, Simeone FJ, Nelson SB, Chang CY. CT-guided discitis-osteomyelitis biopsies: needle gauge and microbiology results. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49:1431–1439. doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03439-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Issa K, Diebo BG, Faloon M, Naziri Q, Pourtaheri S, Paulino CB, Emami A. The Epidemiology of Vertebral Osteomyelitis in the United States From 1998 to 2013. Clin Spine Surg Spine Publ. 2018;31:E102–E108. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Iwata E, Scarborough M, Bowden G, McNally M, Tanaka Y, Athanasou NA. The role of histology in the diagnosis of spondylodiscitis: correlation with clinical and microbiological findings. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B:246–252. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B3.BJJ-2018-0491.R2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jean M, Irisson J-O, Gras G, Bouchand F, Simo D, Duran C, Perronne C, Mulleman D, Bernard L, Dinh A. Diagnostic delay of pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis and its associated factors. Scand J Rheumatol. 2017;46:64–68. doi: 10.3109/03009742.2016.1158314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kamiya N, Hatakeyama S, Kanda N, Yonaha S, Akine D, Yamamoto Y, Matsumura M. Significance of repeat magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing vertebral osteomyelitis. J Gen Fam Med. 2019;20:68–71. doi: 10.1002/jgf2.226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kihira S, Koo C, Mahmoudi K, Leong T, Mei X, Rigney B, Aggarwal A, Doshi AH. Combination of Imaging Features and Clinical Biomarkers Predicts Positive Pathology and Microbiology Findings Suggestive of Spondylodiscitis in Patients Undergoing Image-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy. Am J Neuroradiol. 2020;41:1316–1322. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim BJ, Lee JW, Kim SJ, Lee GY, Kang HS. Diagnostic Yield of Fluoroscopy-Guided Biopsy for Infectious Spondylitis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:233–238. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kouijzer IJE, Scheper H, de Rooy JWJ, Bloem JL, Janssen MJR, van den Hoven L, Hosman AJF, Visser LG, Oyen WJG, Bleeker-Rovers CP, de Geus-Oei L-F. The diagnostic value of 18F–FDG-PET/CT and MRI in suspected vertebral osteomyelitis – a prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2018;45:798–805. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3912-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kowalski TJ, Layton KF, Berbari EF, Steckelberg JM, Huddleston PM, Wald JT, Osmon DR. Follow-Up MR Imaging in Patients with Pyogenic Spine Infections: Lack of Correlation with Clinical Features. Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:693–699. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lecouvet F, Irenge L, Vandercam B, Nzeusseu A, Hamels S, Gala J-L. The etiologic diagnosis of infectious discitis is improved by amplification-based DNA analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:2985–2994. doi: 10.1002/art.20462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ledermann HP, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, Carrino JA. MR Imaging Findings in Spinal Infections: Rules or Myths? Radiology. 2003;228:506–514. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2282020752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lefterova MI, Suarez CJ, Banaei N, Pinsky BA. Next-Generation Sequencing for Infectious Disease Diagnosis and Management. J Mol Diagn. 2015;17:623–634. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lisbona R, Derbekyan V, Novales-Diaz J, Veksler A. Gallium-67 Scintigraphy in Tuberculous and Nontuberculous Infectious Spondylitis. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:853–859. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Love C, Patel M, Lonner BS, Tomas MB, Palestro CJ. Diagnosing Spinal Osteomyelitis: A Comparison of Bone and Ga-67 Scintigraphy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2000;25:963–977. doi: 10.1097/00003072-200012000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Maurer AH, Chen DC, Camargo EE, Wong DF, Wagner HNJ, Alderson PO. Utility of three-phase skeletal scintigraphy in suspected osteomyelitis: concise communication. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 1981;22:941–949. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, Igoumenou VG, Panagopoulos GN, Giannitsioti E, Papadopoulos A, Papagelopoulos PJ. Spondylodiscitis revisited. EFORT Open Rev. 2017;2:447–461. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. McHenry MC, Easley KA, Locker GA. Vertebral Osteomyelitis: Long-Term Outcome for 253 Patients from 7 Cleveland-Area Hospitals. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:1342–1350. doi: 10.1086/340102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. McNamara AL, Dickerson EC, Gomez-Hassan DM, Cinti SK, Srinivasan A. Yield of Image-Guided Needle Biopsy for Infectious Discitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38:2021–2027. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Modic MT, Feiglin DH, Piraino DW, Boumphrey F, Weinstein MA, Duchesneau PM, Rehm S. Vertebral osteomyelitis: assessment using MR. Radiology. 1985;157:157–166. doi: 10.1148/radiology.157.1.3875878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Morales H. Infectious Spondylitis Mimics: Mechanisms of Disease and Imaging Findings. Semin, Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39:587–604. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2018.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Morcrette H, Morgan MS, Farbos A, O'Neill P, Moore K, Titball RW, Studholme DJ. Genome Sequence of Staphylococcus aureus Ex1, Isolated from a Patient with Spinal Osteomyelitis. Genome Announc. 2018;6:1–2. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00623-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mylona E, Samarkos M, Kakalou E, Fanourgiakis P, Skoutelis A. Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Characteristics. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2009;39:10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Nakahara M, Ito M, Hattori N, Magota K, Takahata M, Nagahama K, Sudo H, Kamishima T, Tamaki N, Iwasaki N. 18F-FDG-PET/CT better localizes active spinal infection than MRI for successful minimally invasive surgery. Acta Radiol. 2015;56:829–836. doi: 10.1177/0284185114541983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Nolla JM, Ariza J, Gómez-Vaquero C, Fiter J, Bermejo J, Valverde J, Escofet DR, Gudiol F. Spontaneous pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis in nondrug users. Semin Arthritis Rheu. 2002;31:271–278. doi: 10.1053/sarh.2002.29492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Nolla-Solé JM, Mateo-Soria L, Rozadilla-Sacanell A, Mora-Salvador J, Valverde-Garcia J, Roig-Escofet D. Role of technetium-99m diphosphonate and gallium-67 citrate bone scanning in the early diagnosis of infectious spondylodiscitis. A comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1992;51:665–667. doi: 10.1136/ard.51.5.665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Osenbach RK, Hitchon PW, Menezes AH. Diagnosis and management of pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis in adults. Surg Neurol. 1990;33:266–275. doi: 10.1016/0090-3019(90)90047-S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Pandita N, Paul S, Yadav G, Kalia RB, Kandwal P. Evaluation of Challenges in Diagnosis of Spontaneous Subacute Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis in Immunocompetent Patients: Experiences from a Tertiary Care Center. Asian Spine J. 2019;13:621–629. doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.0220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Patel KB, Poplawski MM, Pawha PS, Naidich TP, Tanenbaum LN. Diffusion-Weighted MRI “Claw Sign” Improves Differentiation of Infectious from Degenerative Modic Type 1 Signal Changes of the Spine. Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:1647–1652. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Patzakis MJ, Rao S, Wilkins J, Moore TM, Harvey PJ. Analysis of 61 cases of vertebral osteomyelitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;264:178–183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Pineda C, Espinosa R, Pena A. Radiographic Imaging in Osteomyelitis: The Role of Plain Radiography, Computed Tomography, Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Scintigraphy. Semin Plast Surg. 2009;23:080–089. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1214160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Prodi E, Grassi R, Iacobellis F, Cianfoni A. Imaging in Spondylodiskitis. Magn Reson Imaging C. 2016;24:581–600. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2016.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Pupaibool J, Vasoo S, Erwin PJ, Murad MH, Berbari EF. The utility of image-guided percutaneous needle aspiration biopsy for the diagnosis of spontaneous vertebral osteomyelitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2015;15:122–131. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Salaffi F, Ceccarelli L, Carotti M, Di Carlo M, Polonara G, Facchini G, Golfieri R, Giovagnoni A. Differentiation between infectious spondylodiscitis versus inflammatory or degenerative spinal changes: How can magnetic resonance imaging help the clinician? Radiol Med. 2021;126:843–859. doi: 10.1007/s11547-021-01347-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Salipante SJ, Sengupta DJ, Rosenthal C, Costa G, Spangler J, Sims EH, Jacobs MA, Miller SI, Hoogestraat DR, Cookson BT, McCoy C, Matsen FA, Shendure J, Lee CC, Harkins TT, Hoffman NG. Rapid 16S rRNA Next-Generation Sequencing of Polymicrobial Clinical Samples for Diagnosis of Complex Bacterial Infections. Plos One. 2013;8:e65226. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Sheikh AF, Khosravi AD, Goodarzi H, Nashibi R, Teimouri A, Motamedfar A, Ranjbar R, Afzalzadeh S, Cyrus M, Hashemzadeh M. Pathogen Identification in Suspected Cases of Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis. Front Cell Infect Mi. 2017;7:60. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Smids C, Kouijzer IJE, Vos FJ, Sprong T, Hosman AJF, de Rooy JWJ, Aarntzen EHJG, de Geus-Oei L-F, Oyen WJG, Bleeker-Rovers CP. A comparison of the diagnostic value of MRI and 18F-FDG-PET/CT in suspected spondylodiscitis. Infection. 2017;45:41–49. doi: 10.1007/s15010-016-0914-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sobottke R, Seifert H, Fätkenheuer G, Schmidt M, Goßmann A, Eysel P. Current Diagnosis and Treatment of Spondylodiscitis. Dtsch Aerzteblatt Online. 2008;105:181–187. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Tali ET, Koc AM, Oner AY. Spinal Brucellosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2015;25:233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.nic.2015.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Tamm AS, Abele JT. Bone and Gallium Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography-Computed Tomography is Equivalent to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Infectious Spondylodiscitis: A Retrospective Study. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2017;68:41–46. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2016.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Torda AJ, Gottlieb T, Bradbury R. Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis: Analysis of 20 Cases and Review. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20:320–328. doi: 10.1093/clinids/20.2.320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Waheed G, Soliman MAR, Ali AM, Aly MH. Spontaneous spondylodiscitis: review, incidence, management, and clinical outcome in 44 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46:E10. doi: 10.3171/2018.10.FOCUS18463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Wong D, Holtom P, Spellberg B. Osteomyelitis Complicating Sacral Pressure Ulcers: Whether or Not to Treat With Antibiotic Therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68:338–342. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Wong H, Tarr GP, Rajpal K, Sweetman L, Doyle A. The impact of antibiotic pre-treatment on diagnostic yield of CT-guided biopsy for spondylodiscitis: A multi-centre retrospective study and meta-analysis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021;65:146–151. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Wu H-TH, Chang C-Y, Chang H, Yen C-C, Cheng H, Chen PC-S, Chiou H-J. Magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy of musculoskeletal lesions. J Chin Med Assoc. 2012;75:160–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Yeh KJ, Husseini JS, Hemke R, Nelson SB, Chang CY. CT-guided discitis-osteomyelitis biopsies with negative microbiology: how many days should we wait before repeating the biopsy? Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49:619–623. doi: 10.1007/s00256-019-03344-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Zarrouk V, Feydy A, Salles F, Dufour V, Guigui P, Redondo A, Fantin B. Imaging does not predict the clinical outcome of bacterial vertebral osteomyelitis. Rheumatology. 2006;46:292–295. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kel228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Zimmerli W. Vertebral Osteomyelitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1022–1029. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0910753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data sets were used in this article.


Articles from Journal of Bone and Joint Infection are provided here courtesy of Copernicus Publications (Copernicus GmbH)

RESOURCES