Cervical Spine Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Instrumented Fusion in the Modern Era

OBJECTIVE: For cases of cervical osteomyelitis that require surgery, concern has continued regarding instrumentation owing to the potential for bacterial seeding of the hardware. We performed a systematic review of the current data. METHODS: A search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Ovid for articles using the keywords "cervical osteomyelitis/spondylodiscitis" and "fusion" or "instrumentation" reported from 1980 to 2017. Prospective or retrospective studies describing >= 2 patients with cervical osteomyelitis were included in the analysis; non-English reports were excluded. Individual patients were excluded from the final analysis if they had previously undergone spinal instrumentation. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients from 24 studies met our criteria. Surgical approaches were classified as anterior-only, combined anteroposterior, and posterior-only for 64.8%, 31.9%, and 3.3% of the patients respectively. Of the patients treated using an anterior-only approach, 76.5% had received anterior plating and 85.3%, a cage or spacer implants. Of the patients who had undergone combined approaches, 85.1% underwent circumferential fixation and 14.9%, anterior debridement with posterior instrumentation. The follow-up period ranged from 6 weeks to 11 years (mean, 31.0 months). All the studies reporting the fusion rates, except for 1, reported a 100% fusion rate. The reported rates of pain improvement and neurologic recovery were favorable. The incidence of hardware failure and wound complications was 4.6% and 4.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite placing instrumentation during active infection, the rates of hardware failure and wound complications were comparable to those of elective cervical spine procedures. These results suggest that surgical intervention with instrumentation is a safe treatment option for patients with cervical spine osteomyelitis.