Background:Pyogenic spondylodiscitis (SPD) is a serious infection of an intervertebral disc and/or adjacent vertebrae, that remains a topical problem in rheumatological practice. Early diagnosis and treatment are the only guarantees of a favorable outcome. Clinicians must strive to isolate the responsible bacteria in order to adapt the treatment, and thus reduce the risk of resistance and complications due to SPD itself, but also to the multiplication of probabilistic treatments.Objectives:Our aim was to study the contribution of the different microbiological and anatomopathological examinations in the diagnosis of pyogenic SPD.Methods:It was a descriptive study in a single rheumatology department. Data were collected retrospectively from observations of patients hospitalized in the past 20 years who have been diagnosed with pyogenic SPD. We excluded cases of tuberculous and brucellar SPD from our study because of their completely different histological and microbiological profiles.Results:Twenty-two cases of pyogenic SPD were collected (14M/ 8F). The mean age of the population was 55.9 years [29,80]. A bacteriological survey including at least one cytobacteriological examination of the urine (CBEU), chest X-rays and blood cultures allowed the identification of the bacteria in 16 cases (73%). The most common site were bacteria was identified was blood culture in 7 cases, skin sample and urine collection in 2 cases each. Disco-vertebral puncture and biopsy (DVPB) was performed in 19 patients when there was no bacteria identification and/or when diagnosis of infectious SPD persisted doubtful. On histopathological examination, were described: an infiltrate and/or inflammatory changes without specificity signs in 7 patients and an appearance of chronic pyogenic SPD very likely in 12 patients. Bacteriological study of DVPB fluid or paravertebral abscesses sample helped to isolate bacteria in 4 patients. DVPB or abscesses puncture were contributing by histological and/or bacteriological examination in 12 patients (63%).Infecting bacteria was identified in 14 patients (64%). Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) and staphylococcus aureus were the most frequent germs (7 cases each) including 2 cases of co-infection. GNBs were represented by: Escherichia Coli and Enterobacter Cloacae in 2 cases each, Proteus Mirabilis, Serratia Marcescens and Klebsiella oxytoca in 1 case each. Clostridium clostridioforme and Lactococcus cremoris were isolated in 1 case each. For patients whose etiological investigation remained negative, SPD diagnosis was retained based on imaging (MRI) guided by anamnestic, clinico-biological and histopathological arguments.Conclusion:SPD is a rare condition that needs to be treated rapidly. Once the diagnosis is suspected, bacteria must be isolated before starting any antibiotic therapy. Simple and non-invasive exams as blood cultures, CBUE and chest rays, should be undertaken first. In fact, these simple exams allowed a germ identification in 73% cases in our study. If doubt persist, DVPB could be contributive to the diagnosis.References:NoneDisclosure of Interests:None declared
Inverted papilloma, a Crying wolf of the urinary bladder
