Abstract
BACKGROUND Pyogenic spondylodiscitis is infection of the intervertebral disc or discs and the adjacent vertebrae. This retrospective study aimed to compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar debridement (PELD) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in 40 patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis (PSD). MATERIAL AND METHODS Medical records of patients who underwent PELD (n=18) or PLIF (n=22) for PSD between 2018 and 2023 were reviewed. The recorded outcomes encompassed surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) measurements, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) assessments, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, duration of hospitalization, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grading, lumbar sagittal parameters, and the incidence of complications. RESULTS The PELD group had shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter length of hospital stay compared to the PLIF group (P<0.01). At the last follow-up, both groups had significant improvement in ESR, CRP levels, and ASIA classification (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The PELD group had lower ODI and VAS ratings at 1 month and 3 months, respectively (P<0.01). The PLIF group had significant improvements in intervertebral space height and lumbar lordosis angle (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS Both PLIF and PELD surgical approaches demonstrate adequate clinical efficacy in the treatment of monosegmental PSD. PLIF can better ensure more spinal stability than PELD, but PELD offers advantages such as reduced minimal surgical trauma, shorter operative duration, and faster recovery after surgery.