Which intradiscal antibiotics regimen?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

lobelsteve

Full Member
Staff member
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
21,234
Reaction score
12,346
Just wondering what antibiotic and dose is being used.

It seems Cleocin and Ancef are all I've ever used and my nurses pre-mixed it with the Omnipaque. I think it was 2cc Cleonin 6mg/5ml and Ancef 1g mixed into the 10cc Omnipaque vial.

Members don't see this ad.
 
We use 100mg of Ancef in the contrast and 900mg IV. I do not believe the IV makes a difference considering blood supply to the disc but IV administration in this manner is standard of care in my area. I have asked several (older) pain docs and anesthesiologists... and they all say they have never seen an allergic reaction to Ancef. If patient has an allergy to similar antibiotics, we give a little test dose and wait before administering the full amount... never had a problem though.

When do you use antibiotics other than cefazolin and what is the reason? Have you seen a true allergy? It seems drugs like aminoglycosides and Vanco have far more potential for side effects, etc.

Also, to my knowledge, no research exists to support antibiotics for discography, IV or intradiscal. Do you know of any?

Thanks for all your help.
Cheers
 
Members don't see this ad :)
mmrichardson said:
Also, to my knowledge, no research exists to support antibiotics for discography, IV or intradiscal. Do you know of any?

Thanks for all your help.
Cheers

All you need to know is that the attorneys will ask you why you didnt go by the standard of care if, God forbid, you do get an infection.

T
 
Spine. 2003 Aug 1;28(15):1735-8.
The use of intradiscal antibiotics for discography: an in vitro study of
gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin.
Klessig HT, Showsh SA, Sekorski A.
Pain Clinic of Northwestern Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54702, USA.
[email protected]
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs)
of gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin, alone and in combination with iohexol
against laboratory strains of Eschericia coli B, Staphylococcus aureus, and
Staphylococcus epidermidis. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of iohexol on the
efficacy of gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
Prophylactic antibiotics have been advocated to prevent discitis following
discography. Intravenous cefazolin administered before discography has been
shown to penetrate the intervertebral disc. However, the use of systemic
antibiotics for prophylaxis may lead to bacterial resistance. Intradiscal
antibiotic administration is an attractive alternative to systemic antibiotic
prophylaxis before discography, but there is no data documenting the efficacy of
commonly used antibiotics in the presence of iohexol. METHODS: MICs were
determined by adding standard concentrations of bacteria to serial dilutions of
antibiotic with and without the addition of iohexol in Todd-Hewitt Broth medium.
MICs were determined as the lowest concentration well that demonstrated
inhibition of cell growth. RESULTS: Gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin
remain efficacious in the presence of iohexol. MICs were lower for cefazolin and
gentamycin than for clindamycin. Iohexol alone also demonstrated some inhibition
of cell growth. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of intradiscal
antibiotics for prophylaxis of disc space infection during discography.
lntradiscal placement of antibiotic should obviate the need for systemic
antibiotic prophylaxis and its attendant risk of generating antimicrobial
resistance.

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 Mar;72(2):271-4.
Discitis after discography. The role of prophylactic antibiotics.
Osti OL, Fraser RD, Vernon-Roberts B.
Spinal Service and Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South
Australia.
Discitis after discography is due to bacterial penetration into the
intervertebral disc by a contaminated needle and has an incidence of 1% to 4%.
We have examined the prophylactic role of cephazolin administered at the time of
discography. An experimental study in sheep using radiographic contrast
containing Staphylococcus epidermidis showed that either adding the antibiotic
to the intradiscal suspension or giving it intravenously 30 minutes before
intradiscal inoculation of bacteria prevented any radiographic, macroscopic or
histological signs of discitis; all the intervertebral disc cultures were
negative. In a prospective clinical study of 127 consecutive patients having
lumbar discography, the injected contrast contained cephazolin 1 mg per ml. None
of the patients developed clinical or radiographic signs of discitis. We
recommend the use of a suitable broad spectrum antibiotic in a single
prophylactic dose whenever the intervertebral disc is entered.
 
algosdoc said:
Spine. 2003 Aug 1;28(15):1735-8.
The use of intradiscal antibiotics for discography: an in vitro study of
gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin.
Klessig HT, Showsh SA, Sekorski A.
Pain Clinic of Northwestern Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54702, USA.
[email protected]
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs)
of gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin, alone and in combination with iohexol
against laboratory strains of Eschericia coli B, Staphylococcus aureus, and
Staphylococcus epidermidis. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of iohexol on the
efficacy of gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
Prophylactic antibiotics have been advocated to prevent discitis following
discography. Intravenous cefazolin administered before discography has been
shown to penetrate the intervertebral disc. However, the use of systemic
antibiotics for prophylaxis may lead to bacterial resistance. Intradiscal
antibiotic administration is an attractive alternative to systemic antibiotic
prophylaxis before discography, but there is no data documenting the efficacy of
commonly used antibiotics in the presence of iohexol. METHODS: MICs were
determined by adding standard concentrations of bacteria to serial dilutions of
antibiotic with and without the addition of iohexol in Todd-Hewitt Broth medium.
MICs were determined as the lowest concentration well that demonstrated
inhibition of cell growth. RESULTS: Gentamicin, cefazolin, and clindamycin
remain efficacious in the presence of iohexol. MICs were lower for cefazolin and
gentamycin than for clindamycin. Iohexol alone also demonstrated some inhibition
of cell growth. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of intradiscal
antibiotics for prophylaxis of disc space infection during discography.
lntradiscal placement of antibiotic should obviate the need for systemic
antibiotic prophylaxis and its attendant risk of generating antimicrobial
resistance.

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 Mar;72(2):271-4.
Discitis after discography. The role of prophylactic antibiotics.
Osti OL, Fraser RD, Vernon-Roberts B.
Spinal Service and Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South
Australia.
Discitis after discography is due to bacterial penetration into the
intervertebral disc by a contaminated needle and has an incidence of 1% to 4%.
We have examined the prophylactic role of cephazolin administered at the time of
discography. An experimental study in sheep using radiographic contrast
containing Staphylococcus epidermidis showed that either adding the antibiotic
to the intradiscal suspension or giving it intravenously 30 minutes before
intradiscal inoculation of bacteria prevented any radiographic, macroscopic or
histological signs of discitis; all the intervertebral disc cultures were
negative. In a prospective clinical study of 127 consecutive patients having
lumbar discography, the injected contrast contained cephazolin 1 mg per ml. None
of the patients developed clinical or radiographic signs of discitis. We
recommend the use of a suitable broad spectrum antibiotic in a single
prophylactic dose whenever the intervertebral disc is entered.


J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Jun;17(3):243-7.
Lumbar discography: should we use prophylactic antibiotics? A study of 435 consecutive discograms and a systematic review of the literature.
Willems PC, Jacobs W, Duinkerke ES, De Kleuver M.
Department of Orthopedics, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar discography can be used in the diagnostic work-up of degenerative spine disease. The most serious complication is discitis, believed to be due to penetration of the disc by a needle contaminated with skin flora. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been advocated, although there is great concern regarding their efficacy and possible adverse effects on disc cells. METHODS: In the current study, the incidence of postdiscography discitis without the use of prophylactic antibiotics was studied in a consecutive patient group. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed using strict criteria: 1). Discography was performed by means of a two-needle technique, 2). complications such as discitis were specifically looked for at follow-up, and 3). the exact numbers of patients and those lost to follow-up were reported. RESULTS: The clinical results of 200 patients with 100% follow-up for a minimum period of 3 months showed no case of discitis. In the literature review, 10 studies were selected. Nine studies without prophylactic antibiotics reported an overall incidence of 12 cases in 4891 patients (0.25%) or 12770 discs (0.094%). The only study with prophylactic antibiotics (127 patients) showed no case of discitis. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the small number of patients in the only study in which antibiotics were used and the overall low incidence of postdiscography discitis, not enough evidence was found that prophylactic antibiotics can prevent discitis. It was concluded that in lumbar discography by means of a two-needle technique without prophylactic antibiotics, the risk of postdiscography discitis is minimal and there is not enough support from the literature to justify the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics.
 
So what's the score?....1 to 1 i guess. Why put a target on your back by not using intradiscal antibiotics? And since when is discography and intradiscal antibiotics considered "routine use of prophylactic antibiotics"? What is the expert medical witness for the plaintiff going to say i wonder? Risk vs benefit....risk vs benefit....risk vs benefit. No brainer.

T
 
I did not include the last article posted because of the non-sequitur logic used by the authors and the ludicrousness of their position. If one DOES have a patient who develops disciitis, the costs can be from 10 to 100 thousand dollars depending on the therapies used for treatment. The same arguments were used when pulse oximetry had its advent in the operating theatre...the naysayers quoted the lack of statistically significant studies to justify its routine use. Of course that position ultimately was proven to be short sighted, demonstrated a lack of common sense, and showed statistical analysis can be perverse to the point of nonsense. The authors also made the quantum leap from intradiscal antibiotics not being justified due to lack of statistical significance to their assertion that needle in needle techniques are somehow inherently necessary.
In 2005 in the absence of statistical data to prove otherwise, intradiscal antibiotics are considered to be the standard of care.
 
The prevention of discitis during discography.

Sharma SK, Jones JO, Zeballos PP, Irwin SA, Martin TW.
Source

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390-9806, USA. [email protected]

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:

Because of the severe complications, discitis represents the most feared complication stemming from discography. Varying needle techniques have been used to prevent discitis, and evidence for the use of intravenous (IV) and/or intradiscal antibiotics is conflicting and often lacking. Consequently, no consensus has been formed for disc infection prevention during discography.
PURPOSE:

The objectives of this review are to summarize and integrate all the available basic science, animal, and clinical evidence regarding prevention of infection from discography and to develop areas of future research.
STUDY DESIGN:

A comprehensive review of the literature dealing with discitis stemming from discography was conducted.
METHODS:

The MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases were searched focusing on prospective and retrospective studies and published case reports on the prevention of discitis. A meta-analysis could not be completed because of the scarcity of data and published randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS:

Of the seven articles that specifically focused on the prevention of discitis, no randomized or controlled trials were located. Two prospective, nonrandomized trials, three retrospective case series, and two literature reviews have been published, but no consensus has been formed for the prevention of discitis during discography. Fifteen articles focused on penetration, efficacy, and dosage of antibiotics into intervertebral discs for the prevention of discitis. There are 14 additional articles that report incidences of discitis.
CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the available clinical evidence, IV or intradiscal antibiotics during discography have not been conclusively shown to decrease the rate of discitis over sterile technique alone. Animal model research supports prophylactic antibiotic use when used before iatrogenic inoculation of intervertebral discs. Both single- and double-needle techniques when used with stylettes are superior to nonstyletted techniques.
 
Is anyone concerned about cefazolin induces seizures in an inadvertant dural puncture? Poor technique but could be a career ender.
 
Is anyone concerned about cefazolin induces seizures in an inadvertant dural puncture? Poor technique but could be a career ender.

Yes, everyone should be concerned. Of course I would like more consensus/clarity/citation on clinda dosing. 30mg/ml seems high.
 
Any updates on aseptic technique and ABx with intradiscal procedures/injections: discogram, IDET, biaclupasty, etc?
 
There were some who do IV ABX and intra-discal.
Then others who do only IV ABX.
Then some who don't do any ABX at all for an intradiscal procedure.

Wanting to know if any consensus has been reached or accepted standard of care.
 
Last edited:
There were some who do IV ABX and intra-discal.
Then others who do only IV ABX.
Then some who don't do any ABX at all for a intradiscal procedure.

Wanting to know if any consensus has been reached or accepted standard of care.

or, #4, which you didnt mention and which most do : Intradiscal Abx only....
 
Top