Ahmad Farajzadeh Sheikh, Azar D. Khosravi, Hamed Goodarzi, Roohangiz Nashibi, Alireaza Teimouri, Azim Motamedfar, Reza Ranjbar, Sara Afzalzadeh, Mehrandokht Cyrus, Mohammad Hashemzadeh
Abstract
Pyogenic spinal infection continues to represent a worldwide problem. In approximately one-third of patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis, the infectious agent is never identified. Of the cases that lead to organismal identification, bacteria are more commonly isolated from the spine rather than fungi and parasites. This study applied universal prokaryotic 16S rRNA PCR as a rapid diagnostic tool for the detection of bacterial agents in specimens from patients suspected of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Gram and Ziehl-Neelsen staining were used as a preliminary screening measure for microbiologic evaluation of patient samples. PCR amplification targeting 16S rRNA gene was performed on DNA extracted from 57 cases including specimens from epidural abscesses, vertebral, and disc biopsies. Positive samples were directly sequenced. MRI findings demonstrated that disc destruction and inflammation were the major imaging features of suspected pyogenic spondylodiscitis cases, as 44 cases showed such features. The most common site of infection was the lumbar spine (66.7%), followed by thoracic spine (19%), the sacroiliac joint (9.5%), and lumbar-thoracic spine (4.8%) regions. A total of 21 samples amplified the 16S rRNA-PCR product. Sanger sequencing of the PCR products identified the following bacteriological agents: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (n = 9; 42.9%), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 6; 28.5%), Mycobacterium abscessus (n = 5; 23.8%), and Mycobacterium chelonae (n = 1; 4.8%). 36 samples displayed no visible 16S rRNA PCR signal, which suggested that non-bacterial infectious agents (e.g., fungi) or non-infectious processes (e.g., inflammatory, or neoplastic) may be responsible for some of these cases. The L3-L4 site (23.8%) was the most frequent site of infection. Single disc/vertebral infection were observed in 9 patients (42.85%), while 12 patients (57.15%) had 2 infected adjacent vertebrae. Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) inflammatory markers were noted in majority of the patients. In conclusion, microbiological methods and MRI findings are vital components for the proper diagnosis of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Our findings suggest that molecular methods such as clinical application of 16S rRNA PCR and sequencing may be useful as adjunctive diagnostic tools for pyogenic spondylodiscitis. The rapid turnaround time of 16S rRNA PCR and sequencing submission and results can potentially decrease the time to diagnosis and improve the therapeutic management and outcome of these infections. Although S. aureus and M. tuberculosis were the most common causes of pyogenic spinal infections in this study, other infectious agents and non-infectious etiologies should be considered. Based on study results, we advise that antibiotic therapy should be initiated after a definitive etiological diagnosis.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,448,846
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#3,590
of 6,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,795
of 307,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#72
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
