Current Issue - March/April 2024 - Vol 27 Issue 3


  1. 2024;27;111-119Unilateral or Bilateral Percutaneous Endoscopic Debridement and Drainage for Thoracolumbar Infections: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis
    Systematic Review
    Yi Mao, MMed, Junchao Zhang, MMed, Yunzhong Zhan, MMed, and Zhou Ye, MMed.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage (UPEDD) and bilateral PEDD (BPEDD) are commonly implemented, and have consistently yielded favorable clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of literature contrasting the advantages and disadvantages between these 2 procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this research was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the clinical effects of UPEDD and BPEDD.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: A systematic review of studies reporting outcomes following UPEDD and/or BPEDD procedures was performed. The extracted data were used for meta-analysis. Pooled event rates for positive bacteria culture, pain control satisfaction, reoperation, and complications were estimated. The pooled operation time and blood loss were also calculated.

RESULTS: Among 764 retrieved articles, 28 studies with 661 patients met the inclusion criteria and were used for our meta-analysis. A total of 21 studies (462 patients) investigated UPEDD outcomes and 7 studies (199 patients) investigated BPEDD outcomes. For the UPEDD group, the pooled event rates for positive bacteria culture, pain control satisfaction, reoperation, and complications were 72%, 91%, 9% and 4%, respectively; the pooled operation time and blood loss were 89.90 minutes and 59.77 mL. For the BPEDD group, these were 79%, 92%, 4%, 8%, 93.23 minutes and 64.93 mL, respectively.

LIMITATIONS: First, all included studies were retrospective series, limiting our study design to a single-arm meta-analysis. Second, there was a limited amount of studies that were determined to be fitting, particularly on BPEDD; the sample size was also small. Third, the clinical effects of UPEDD and BPEDD needed to be compared in greater detail, such as the time it took for inflammatory markers to return to normal, the incidence of local kyphosis, and whether the duration of antibiotic use could be shortened after adequate debridement with BPEDD. Lastly, further studies are necessary to compare the clinical outcome of PEDD and percutaneous endoscopic interbody debridement and fusion.

CONCLUSIONS: Both UPEDD and BPEDD can provide a relatively reliable causative-pathogen identification and satisfactory clinical outcome. The 2 techniques are not significantly different in terms of positive bacteria culture rate, pain control satisfaction rate, complication rate, and reoperation rate.

KEY WORDS: Percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage, unilateral, bilateral, spinal infection