Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Bacteria found near spinal implants after vertebral infection surgery
By Chen, Wei-Hua et al.·Published in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society·2014·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Bacteria detected after instrumentation surgery for pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis in a canine model.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with spinal infections underwent surgery to remove infected tissue and received metal implants to support their spine. After the surgery, tests showed that many of the dogs had bacteria near the implants, but none showed signs of infection returning. This suggests that using metal implants in infected areas of the spine is safe and does not necessarily cause further infections. Overall, the dogs did well after the surgery and did not experience any complications related to the implants.
People also search for: dog spinal infection treatment · dog surgery metal implants safety · signs of infection after dog surgery
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to identify the presence, type and origin of bacteria adjacent to the metal implant in the infected region in a canine model of pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis treated with single-stage anterior autogenous bone grafting and instrumentation. METHODS: Dogs with pyogenic spondylodiscitis underwent one-stage debridement, autogenous bone grafting and titanium plate instrumentation and perioperative antibiotic therapy. The implants and adjacent vertebral bones were removed surgically at various postoperative time points (4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks) for bacteria detection. Bacteria were detected from retrieved spinal implants as well as surrounding bones by culture and/or pyrosequencing methods in 17 (85%) of all 20 animals. The positive rate for bacteria presence was 45% by culture and 80% by pyrosequencing method. RESULTS: Radiological or macroscopic examination showed no signs for infection recurrence in any animal regardless of bacteria presence at the surgical site. However, organism identical with the causative bacterium for spinal infection was found in only two of nine culture-positive animals. CONCLUSION: Within the confines of the study, the use of metallic implants in an infected area did not lead to a clinically relevant infection although bacteria may exist at the surgical site. The use of metallic implants in an infected area of the spine is safe. The metallic implants may not be the “culprit” for the persistence or recurrence of infection.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24121752/