Introduction
The incidence of pyogenic spondylitis has been rising over the years [
1]. Evidence indicates that surgical treatment provides superior outcomes compared with conservative management, leading to a shift toward surgery-centered strategies [
2]. Several surgical techniques have been developed; among these, minimally invasive posterior fixation without debridement or bone grafting is widely practiced to achieve early infection control and shorten treatment duration [
3,
4].
In pyogenic spondylitis, abscess formation is regarded as a poor prognostic factor [
1,
5,
6]. Epidural abscesses often necessitate surgical intervention [
5,
6], while iliopsoas abscesses are associated with prolonged treatment [
7,
8]. Empyema, although rare, represents a challenging complication that typically requires surgical drainage [
9]. However, some studies suggest that abscesses associated with pyogenic spondylitis are secondary manifestations and may resolve without drainage if the underlying spinal infection is effectively managed [
10,
11].
Although abscess formation is generally considered a negative prognostic factor in pyogenic spondylitis [
5–
8], its impact on treatment outcomes in surgically managed patients remains unclear. To date, no studies have directly compared the effects of specific abscess types (epidural abscess, iliopsoas abscess, and empyema) on treatment outcomes or antibiotic duration. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the effects of the presence and type of abscess on treatment duration and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis. We hypothesized that patients with any type of abscess would experience longer treatment courses and higher rates of treatment failure than those without abscesses.
Discussion
This study yielded several key findings. Although patients with abscesses presented with higher WBC counts and a greater incidence of prior infectious diseases at admission, postoperative clinical outcomes, including antibiotic duration and unplanned additional surgeries, did not differ significantly between patients with and without abscesses. However, abscess type influenced outcomes: iliopsoas abscesses were associated with significantly longer antibiotic treatment, epidural abscesses with shorter treatment durations, and empyema with poor infection control and a higher rate of unplanned additional surgeries.
Abscesses, such as epidural, iliopsoas, and empyema, are established indicators of disease severity and are incorporated into classification systems and prognostic scores for pyogenic spondylitis [
14–
16]. Abscess formation is common in pyogenic spondylitis, with epidural and paravertebral abscesses reported in approximately 55% of cases [
6], although the frequency varies across studies. Despite its rarity, empyema is now recognized as a severe complication of pyogenic spondylitis [
9,
17]. Although the potential severity of untreated abscesses is well known, comprehensive data on the epidemiology of specific abscess types and their differential impact on outcomes remain limited [
1,
5–
9].
To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the prevalence of different abscess types and their impact on outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for pyogenic spondylitis. Two key findings emerged. First, the presence of an abscess did not significantly affect the duration of antibiotics or the rate of unplanned additional surgeries. Although abscess prevalence was quite high (71%; epidural 55%, iliopsoas 41%, and empyema 3%), their presence alone did not worsen treatment duration, recurrence rates, or complication rates. It should be emphasized that this study focused exclusively on postoperative outcomes in patients treated with posterior fixation. Surgical approaches to pyogenic spondylitis vary widely, including percutaneous endoscopic drainage (PED) and combined anterior-posterior surgery [
18,
19]. Compared with posterior fixation, PED is less invasive but has certain limitations in managing large abscesses [
18]. In this regard, the minimally invasive posterior fixation approach used in this study provided stable infection control and yielded generally favorable outcomes despite the presence of an abscess [
20]. Nonetheless, the inherent risks of posterior fixation, including implant failure (5% in this series) and adjacent segment disease (2%), should be recognized.
Second, the type of abscess was an important determinant of outcome. Iliopsoas abscesses were associated with prolonged antibiotic treatment, empyema was linked to poor infection control and unplanned surgeries, whereas epidural abscesses did not adversely affect clinical outcomes.
The presence of an iliopsoas abscess may indicate greater infection severity and necessitate longer antibiotic therapy, consistent with previous reports [
8,
9]. In such cases, earlier surgical intervention or combined anterior-posterior surgery may help shorten treatment duration [
8,
19,
21–
23]. Interestingly, epidural abscesses in our cohort were associated with shorter antibiotic courses. Although epidural abscesses are often considered surgical indications [
5,
6], their presence after posterior fixation was not linked to poor outcomes; only eight of 51 patients (16%) in our series required direct drainage. Recent studies have similarly reported reduced mortality in patients with epidural abscesses, possibly reflecting early surgical intervention and aggressive infection control [
24]. These findings suggest that, in the absence of severe neurological deficits, posterior fixation alone may be sufficient for managing both pyogenic spondylitis and associated epidural abscesses [
10,
11]. In our cohort, the incidence of empyema was only 3%; however, unlike epidural and iliopsoas abscesses, all patients with empyema required surgical drainage. Empyema represents a severe infection that extends beyond the parietal pleura into the pleural space [
9,
17], and evidence indicates that minimally invasive surgery alone is insufficient for its control [
25]. Whenever feasible, empyema drainage should be performed concurrently with initial posterior fixation, with surgeons remaining alert to the possible need for additional anterior debridement if infection control is inadequate. However, given the small number of empyema cases in this study (n=3), these findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating.
This study has several limitations. First, its retrospective, multicenter design introduced inevitable variability in treatment strategies across institutions. The criteria for additional procedures, such as decompression, were not standardized, raising the possibility of selection bias. Second, decisions regarding the duration of antibiotic therapy were made at the discretion of the attending physicians, without a uniform protocol. Third, the sample size was modest (92 patients overall), with only three cases of empyema, and the surgical approach was limited to posterior fixation. As a result, the findings related to empyema should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Fourth, seven patients who underwent direct manipulation of the infection site were excluded, which may have biased the cohort toward less severe disease.
Fifth, among the 65 patients in the abscess group, 28 had multiple abscesses. Consequently, in analyses other than the multivariate model, these cases could not be treated as fully independent observations, introducing potential confounding. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Sixth, because this study focused exclusively on postoperative outcomes, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients with pyogenic spondylitis, particularly those managed conservatively. In addition, the limited sample size limited the ability to perform multivariate analyses to identify risk factors for treatment failure. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings, compare different surgical approaches, and clarify the impact of causative organisms and pathogen types, which were not evaluated here.
Despite these limitations, this study offers meaningful evidence by reporting outcomes of a single surgical approach in 92 patients with spinal infections. Despite its retrospective design, data were collected across 10 centers with a mean postoperative follow-up exceeding 2 years. While caution is warranted in extrapolating these findings to patients managed conservatively, treated with alternative surgical procedures, or from different racial and geographic populations, a reasonable degree of generalizability can be inferred.