Volume 5, Issue 3 And 4 (7-2017)                   JoMMID 2017, 5(3 And 4): 62-65 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sofian M, Aghakhani A, Pourbaferani F, Banifazl M, Zarinfar N, Kahbazi M et al . Comparison of Pyogenic, Tuberculous and Brucellar Spondylitis during 10 Years in a Central City of Iran . JoMMID. 2017; 5 (3 and 4) :62-65
URL: http://jommid.pasteur.ac.ir/article-1-159-en.html
Department of Clinical Research, Pasteur Institute of Iran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (3754 Views)
Introduction: Spondylitis is a serious disease caused by a variety of pathogens. The identification of spondylitis etiologies is a very important medical issue. This study was conducted to compare clinical, laboratory and radiological features of the patients with tuberculous (TS), brucellar (BS) and pyogenic spondylitis (PS) in a central city of Iran. Methods: In this retrospective study, we obtained the data of 100 patients with spondylitis from a hospital in Arak city. The patients were divided into three groups including TS (8 cases), BS (71 cases) and PS (21 cases), based on the spondylitis etiology. Results: The mean age of cases with TS, BS, and PS was 67.25±20.26, 55.39±15.60 and 52.19±12.74 years, respectively. The most common clinical feature was back pain followed by fever. Twenty-one cases had psoas abscess which was more common in PS group. No significant difference regarding the involved vertebral regions was observed between the groups. Intravenous drug use, history of vertebral surgery and chronic renal failure were frequent in patients with PS, and all TS cases had pulmonary involvement. Conclusion: Our data showed that presence of concomitant pulmonary involvement and a confirmed history of tuberculosis are suggestive of tuberculous spondylitis. However, the distinction between TS and BS is still problematic and only a combination of clinical data, laboratory findings, radiological features and history of TB can be helpful in differentiation of TS and BS.
Full-Text [PDF 170 kb]   (1316 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Microbial pathogenesis
Received: 2018/04/7 | Accepted: 2018/04/11 | Published: 2018/04/25

1. ------------- 1. Grammatico L, Baron S, Rusch E, Lepage B, Surer N, Desenclos JC, et al. Epidemiology of vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) in France: analysis of hospital-discharge data 2002- 2003. Epidemiol Infect. 2008; 136 (5): 653-60. [DOI:10.1017/S0950268807008850] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. 2. Acosta FL Jr, Chin CT, Quin˜ones H, Ames CP, Weinstein PR, Chou D. Diagnosis and management of adult pyogenic osteomyelitis of the cervical spine. Neurosurg Focus. 2004; 17 (6): E2. [DOI:10.3171/foc.2004.17.6.2] [PMID]
3. 3. Berbari EF, Steckelberg JM, Osmon DR. Osteomyelitis. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Churchill Livingstone; 2010; 1457-67. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-443-06839-3.00103-X]
4. 4. Mylona E, Samarkos M, Kakalou E, Fanourgiakis P, Skoutelis A. Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: a systematic review of clinical characteristics. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2009; 39 (1): 10-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.03.002] [PMID]
5. 5. Mustapić M, Višković K, Borić I, Marjan D, Zadravec D, Begovac J. Vertebral osteomyelitis in adult patients: Characteristics and outcome. Acta Clin Croat. 2016; 55 (1): 9-15. [DOI:10.20471/acc.2016.55.01.2] [PMID]
6. 6. Ribeira T, Veiros I, Nunes R, Martins L. Spondilodyscitis: five years of experience in a department of rehabilitation. Acta Med Port. 2008; 21 (6): 559-66 [PMID]
7. 7. Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Osteomyelitis. Lancet. 2004; 364: 369-79. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16727-5]
8. 8. Bosnak V, Karaoglan I, Namiduru M. Vertebral Osteomyelitis: Seven years experience of 85 cases. Acta Medica Mediterranea. 2016; 32 (1): 997.
9. 9. Mete B, Kurt C, Yilmaz MH, Ertan G, Ozaras R, Mert A, et al. Vertebral osteomyelitis: eight years' experience of 100 cases. Rheumatol Int. 2012; 32 (11): 3591-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00296-011-2233-z] [PMID]
10. 10. Turunc T, Demiroglu YZ, Uncu H, Colakoglu S, Arslan H. A comparative analysis of tuberculous, brucellar and pyogenic spontaneous spondylodiscitis patients. J Infect. 2007; 55 (2): 158-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2007.04.002] [PMID]
11. 11. Yaldz C, Özdemir N, Yaman O, Feran HG, Tansug T, Minoglu M. A Retrospective Study of 39 Patients Treated With Anterior Approach of Thoracic and Lumbar Spondylodiscitis: Clinical Manifestations, Anterior Surgical Treatment, and Outcome. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94 (47): e2110. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000002110] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. 12. Celik AK, Aypak A, Aypak C. Comparative analysis of tuberculous and brucellar spondylodiscitis. Trop Doct. 2011; 41 (3): 172-4. [DOI:10.1258/td.2011.110013] [PMID]
13. 13. Yoon YK, Jo YM, Kwon HH, Yoon HJ, Lee EJ, Park SY, et al. Differential diagnosis between tuberculous spondylodiscitis and pyogenic spontaneous spondylodiscitis: a multicenter descriptive and comparative study. Spine J. 2015; 15 (8): 1764-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.04.006] [PMID]
14. 14. Erdem H, Elaldi N, Batirel A, Aliyu S, Sengoz G, Pehlivanoglu F, et al. Comparison of brucellar and tuberculous spondylodiscitis patients: results of the multicenter "Backbone-1 Study". Spine J. 2015; 15 (12): 2509-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.024] [PMID]
15. 15. Colmenero JD, Jiménez-Mejías ME, Sánchez-Lora FJ, Reguera JM, Palomino-Nicás J, Martos F, et al. Pyogenic, tuberculous, and brucellar vertebral osteomyelitis: a descriptive and comparative study of 219 cases. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997; 56 (12): 709-15. [DOI:10.1136/ard.56.12.709] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. 16. Capelo J, Carragoso A, Albuquerque C, Mocho ML, Canto-Moreira N. Infectious spondylodiscitis: a study of forty-one cases. Acta Reumatol Port. 2007; 32 (3): 255-62. [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.