Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 N. Broadway, Ste 301, Baltimore, MD 21029, USA; Department of Anesthesiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20889, USA.
Spine J. 2021 Jun;21(6):903-914. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.013. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
The contribution of bacterial infection to chronic low back pain and its treatment with antibiotics have generated considerable controversy in literature. If efficacious, antibiotics have the potential to transform the treatment of chronic low back pain in a significant subset of patients. Some microbiology studies of disc tissue from patients with CLBP have shown that bacteria are present, most likely due to infection, while others conclude they are absent or if found, it is due to surgical contamination. Clinical studies testing the efficacy of oral antibiotics to treat CLBP have either shown that the treatment is efficacious leading to significantly reduced pain and disability or that their effect is modest and not clinically significant. Critical review of the literature on CLBP, bacterial infection and treatment with antibiotics identified five well-designed and executed microbiology studies characterizing bacteria in disc samples that demonstrate that bacteria do infect herniated disc tissue, but that the bacterial burden is low and may be below the limits of detection in some studies. Two randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating oral antibiotics in patients with CLBP indicate that for certain subsets of patients, the reduction in pain and disability achieved with antibiotic therapy may be significant. In patients for whom other therapies have failed, and who might otherwise progress to disc replacement or fusion surgery, antibiotic therapy may well be an attractive option to reduce the individual suffering associated with this debilitating condition. Additional clinical research is recommended to refine the selection of patients with CLBP caused or complicated by bacterial infection and most likely to respond to antibiotics, to optimize antibiotic therapy to maximize patient benefit, to minimize and manage side effects, and to address legitimate concerns about antibiotic stewardship.
细菌感染对慢性下腰痛的影响及其抗生素治疗在文献中引起了相当大的争议。如果有效,抗生素有可能改变很大一部分慢性下腰痛患者的治疗方法。一些对慢性下腰痛患者椎间盘组织的微生物学研究表明存在细菌,很可能是由于感染,而其他研究则得出结论认为不存在细菌,或者如果存在,那是由于手术污染。临床研究测试口服抗生素治疗慢性下腰痛的疗效,结果表明治疗有效,可显著减轻疼痛和残疾,或者治疗效果温和,无临床意义。对慢性下腰痛、细菌感染和抗生素治疗的文献进行批判性回顾,确定了五项设计和执行良好的微生物学研究,这些研究描述了椎间盘样本中的细菌,表明细菌确实感染了椎间盘组织,但细菌负荷较低,在某些研究中可能低于检测限。两项评估慢性下腰痛患者口服抗生素的随机对照临床试验表明,对于某些亚组患者,抗生素治疗减轻疼痛和残疾的效果可能显著。对于其他治疗方法失败的患者,并且可能会进展为椎间盘置换或融合手术的患者,抗生素治疗可能是减轻这种使人衰弱的疾病相关个体痛苦的一个有吸引力的选择。建议开展更多的临床研究,以细化选择由细菌感染引起或复杂化的慢性下腰痛患者,这些患者最有可能对抗生素产生反应,优化抗生素治疗以最大限度地提高患者受益,尽量减少和管理副作用,并解决关于抗生素管理的合理问题。