您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 64 ›› Issue (8): 1-7.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2025.1514

• 自然疫源性疾病防治策略专题 •    

布病脊柱炎的临床特征及危险因素

陈功海1,2,曲春媚1,2,谢雪雪3,王刚1,2,赵连晖1,2,赛林涛1,2,许楠楠1,2   

  1. 1.山东大学齐鲁医院感染性疾病科, 山东 济南 250012;2.山东省风湿免疫病医防融合转化重点实验室, 山东 济南 250012;3.山东中医药大学附属医院血液病科, 山东 济南 250013
  • 发布日期:2026-08-14
  • 通讯作者: 许楠楠. E-mail: xunannan_90@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划“病原学与防疫技术体系研究”重点专项(2023YFC2308800);山东省自然科学基金(ZR2023MH169)

Clinical features and risk factors of brucellar spondylitis

CHEN Gonghai1,2, QU Chunmei1,2, XIE Xuexue3, WANG Gang1,2, ZHAO Lianhui1,2, SAI Lintao1,2, XU Nannan1,2   

  1. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong, China;
    2. Shandong Key Laboratory of Medicine and Prevention Integration in Rheumatism and Immunity Disease, Jinan 250012, Shandong, China;
    3. Department of Hematology, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Jinan 250013, Shandong, China
  • Published:2026-08-14

摘要: 目的 描述布鲁氏菌病及布鲁氏菌性脊柱炎(简称“布病脊柱炎”)的临床特征,并探讨单纯布鲁氏菌病患者发生脊柱炎的危险因素,以期为布病脊柱炎的早期识别和临床干预提供依据。 方法 以2015—2024年住院治疗的109例布鲁氏菌病患者为研究对象,根据有无影像学证实的脊柱炎,分为单纯布鲁氏菌病组(n=50)和布病脊柱炎组(n=59)。收集两组患者的人口学资料、临床表现、实验室检查结果及影像学表现,通过二元logistic回归分析明确单纯布鲁氏菌病患者发生脊柱炎的危险因素。 结果 109例患者中男81例、女28例,发病年龄为56(47.5,63.5)岁。布鲁氏菌病患者最常见的临床表现为发热、腰背痛、乏力。两组患者腰背痛、下肢放射痛、上/下肢麻木、出汗/盗汗、头痛的发生率差异有统计学意义。与单纯布鲁氏菌病组相比,布病脊柱炎组亚急性期和慢性期患者占比更高。布病脊柱炎组患者天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶(aspartate aminotransferase, AST)、总胆红素(total bilirubin, TBIL)水平低于单纯布鲁氏菌病组,而血清钙离子水平高于单纯布鲁氏菌病组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。血培养总阳性率为35.8%,单纯布鲁氏菌病组血培养阳性率高于布病脊柱炎组(56.0% vs. 18.6%,P<0.001)。布病脊柱炎最常累及腰椎(68.5%),其中L4~L5椎体受累最常见。布病脊柱炎组住院时间[11(7,16)d] 长于单纯布鲁氏菌病组[6(4,10)d],差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。二元logistic回归分析结果显示,腰背痛(OR=28.918,95%CI:8.057~103.789)、血培养阴性(OR=0.219,95%CI:0.065~0.740)、低AST水平(OR=0.960,95%CI:0.923~0.998)是布鲁氏菌病患者发生脊柱炎的独立危险因素。据此建立布病脊柱炎预测模型:Logit(P)=-1.597+3.364×腰背痛(无=0,有=1)-1.519×血培养(阴性=0,阳性=1)-0.041×AST,该模型灵敏度为94.9%,特异度为74.0%,截断值为0.343。 结论 布鲁氏菌病患者最常见的临床表现为发热、腰背痛和乏力。脊柱炎是布鲁氏菌病的重要并发症,以腰椎病变最常见,L4~L5为主,腰背痛为其最常见的症状。腰背痛、血培养阴性、低AST水平是布鲁氏菌病患者发生脊柱炎的独立危险因素。

关键词: 布鲁氏菌病, 脊柱炎, 影像学, 危险因素

Abstract: Objective To describe the clinical characteristics of brucellosis with or without spondylitis and to explore the risk factors for spondylitis in patients with brucellosis, thereby providing a basis for early identification and clinical intervention of brucellar spondylitis. Methods A total of 109 patients with brucellosis hospitalized from 2015 to 2024 were enrolled. According to the presence or absence of imaging-confirmed spondylitis, they were divided into the simple brucellosis group(n=50)and the brucellar spondylitis group(n=59). Demographic data, clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and imaging features were collected. The clinical characteristics of the two groups were described, and the risk factors for spondylitis in patients with simple brucellosis were identified through binary logistic regression analysis. Results Among the 109 patients, 81 were males and 28 were females, with the age of onset of 56(47.5, 63.5)years. The most common clinical manifestations of brucellosis were fever, low back pain, and fatigue. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of low back pain, radiating pain in the lower limbs, numbness in the upper/lower limbs, sweating/night sweats, and headache. Compared with the simple brucellosis group, the brucellar spondylitis group had a higher proportion of patients in the subacute and chronic stages. The levels of aspartate aminotransferase(AST)and total bilirubin(TBIL)in the brucellar spondylitis group were lower than those in the simple brucellosis group, while the serum calcium level was higher, with statistically significant differences. The overall positive rate of blood culture was 35.8%, and the positive rate in the simple brucellosis group was higher than that in the brucellar spondylitis group(56.0% vs. 18.6%, P<0.001). Brucellar spondylitis most commonly involved the lumbar spine(68.5%), with the L4-L5 vertebrae being the most frequently affected. The length of hospital stay in the brucellar spondylitis group was longer than that in the simple brucellosis group [11(7,16)days vs. 6(4,10)days, P<0.001]. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that low back pain(OR=28.918, 95%CI: 8.057-103.789), negative blood culture(OR=0.219, 95%CI: 0.065-0.740), and low AST level(OR=0.960, 95%CI: 0.923-0.998)were independent risk factors for spondylitis in patients with simple brucellosis. A prediction model for brucellar spondylitis was established: Logit(P)=-1.597+3.364×low back pain(no=0, yes=1)-1.519×blood culture(negative=0, positive=1)-0.041×AST. The model had a sensitivity of 94.9%, a specificity of 74.0%, and a cut-off value of 0.343. Conclusion The most common clinical manifestations in patients with brucellosis are fever, low back pain, and fatigue. Spondylitis is an important complication of brucellosis, with lumbar spine lesions(mainly L4-L5)being the most common, and low back pain is the most frequent symptom. Low back pain, negative blood culture, and low AST level are independent risk factors for spondylitis in patients with simple brucellosis.

Key words: Brucellosis, Spondylitis, Imaging, Risk factors

中图分类号: 

  • R516.7
[1] Rossetti C A, Arenas-Gamboa A M, Maurizio E. Caprine brucellosis: a historically neglected disease with significant impact on public health[J]. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 2017, 11(8): e0005692. DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005692
[2] Jin M, Fan Z X, Gao R F, et al. Research progress on complications of brucellosis[J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2023, 13: 1136674. DOI:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1136674
[3] Sun G Q, Li M T, Zhang J, et al. Transmission dynamics of brucellosis: mathematical modelling and applications in China[J]. Comput Struct Biotechnol J, 2020, 18: 3843-3860. DOI:10.1016/j.csbj.2020.11.014
[4] Qureshi K A, Parvez A, Fahmy N A, et al. Brucellosis: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment-a comprehensive review[J]. Ann Med, 2023, 55(2): 2295398. DOI:10.1080/07853890.2023.2295398
[5] Unuvar G K, Kilic A U, Doganay M. Current therapeutic strategy in osteoarticular brucellosis[J]. North Clin Istanbul, 2019: 6(4): 415-420.
[6] Ahmed W, Zheng K, Liu Z F. Establishment of chronic infection: Brucellas stealth strategy[J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2016, 6: 30. DOI:10.3389/fcimb.2016.00030
[7] Tali E T, Koc A M, Oner A Y. Spinal brucellosis[J]. Neuroimaging Clin N Am, 2015, 25(2): 233-245.
[8] 王杰, 张强. 布鲁氏菌性脊柱炎诊断和治疗研究进展[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2021, 29(14): 1304-1307. Wang Jie, Zhang Qiang. Progress in diagnosis and treatment of Brucellar spondylitis[J]. Orthopedic Journal of China, 2021, 29(14): 1304-1307.
[9] 布鲁氏菌病诊疗方案(2023年版)[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2024, 23(5): 661-664.
[10] 地里下提·阿不力孜, 范俊, 马良. 布鲁氏菌性脊柱炎诊断及治疗专家共识[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2022, 44(6): 531-538. Dilixiati Abulizi, Fan Jun, Ma Liang. Expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of Brucella spondylitis[J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2022, 44(6): 531-538.
[11] Lu Y P, Qiu W Q, Zhang T, et al. Epidemiology and laboratory testing of Brucella spondylitis[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14: 26345. DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-77391-w
[12] Moons K G M, Altman D G, Reitsma J B, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis(TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(1): W1-W73.
[13] Sun Z X, Wang Y, Li Y J, et al. Socioeconomic, meteorological factors and spatiotemporal distribution of human brucellosis in China between 2004 and 2019: a study based on spatial panel model[J]. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 2023; 17(11): e0011765. DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0011765
[14] Gou L, Yang Y X, Li J L, et al. MRI findings and classification of Brucella spondylitis: a China multicenter study[J]. Eur J Med Res, 2024, 29(1): 469. DOI:10.1186/s40001-024-02011-2
[15] Yagupsky P, Morata P, Colmenero J D. Laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis[J]. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2019, 33: e00073-e00019. DOI:10.1128/cmr.00073-19
[16] Li D, Yuan G M, Wang Y O, et al. Clinical characteristics, treatment, and prognosis of osteoarticular brucellosis: a retrospective real-world study in Shenyang, China, 2014-2019[J]. Foodborne Pathog Dis, 2025, 22(2): 86-96.
[17] Demirdal T, Sen P. Risk factors for focal involvement in brucellosis[J]. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 2020, 97(1): 115003. DOI:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115003
[18] Liu Z G, Liu D Y, Wang M, et al. Human brucellosis epidemiology in the pastoral area of HulunBuir city, Inner Mongolia autonomous region, China, between 2003 and 2018[J]. Transbound Emerg Dis, 2022, 69(3): 1155-1165.
[19] Kayaaslan B, Bastug A, Aydin E, et al. A long-term survey of brucellosis: is there any marker to predict the complicated cases?[J]. Infect Dis, 2016, 48(3): 215-221.
[20] Shi Q N, Qin H J, Lu Q S, et al. Incidence and warning signs for complications of human brucellosis: a multi-center observational study from China[J]. Infect Dis Poverty, 2024, 13(1): 18. DOI:10.1186/s40249-024-01186-4
[21] Bosilkovski M. Increased risk of brucellosis misdiagnosis in regions that lose their endemicity[J]. Trop Biomed, 2023, 40(1): 76-79.
[22] Trott D J, Abraham S, Adler B. Antimicrobial resistance in Leptospira, Brucella, and other rarely investigated veterinary and zoonotic pathogens[J]. Microbiol Spectr, 2018, 6(4): 13. DOI:10.1128/microbiolspec.arba-0029-2017
[23] Copur B, Sayili U. Laboratory and clinical predictors of focal involvement and bacteremia in brucellosis[J]. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2022, 41(5): 793-801.
[24] Cai J, Osikowicz M, Sebastiani G. Clinical significance of elevated liver transaminases in HIV-infected patients[J]. Aids, 2019, 33(8): 1267-1282.
[25] Giambartolomei G H, Delpino M V. Immunopathogenesis of hepatic brucellosis[J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2019, 9: 423. DOI:10.3389/fcimb.2019.00423
[26] Pan S F, Chen S R, Zhou K X, et al. Development and validation of a clinico-biological score for Brucella spondylitis: a two-center study[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2025, 25(1): 1445. DOI:10.1186/s12879-025-11886-3
[27] Feng Q S, Ha X Q, Yuan X, et al. Clinical and diagnostic insights into Brucella spondylitis: a comprehensive retrospective study[J]. Front Immunol, 2025, 16: 1638298. DOI:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1638298
[28] Wang K, Gu Z G, Liu Q, et al. Clinical epidemiological characteristics and treatment outcomes of Brucella spondylitis in Ningxia, China: a 12-year single-center retrospective study[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2025, 25(1): 1567. DOI:10.1186/s12879-025-12101-z
[1] 薛宁,魏绪霞,徐俊杰,唐运萍,杨露. 不同年龄组儿童艰难梭菌感染临床特点及预后影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2026, 64(7): 55-62.
[2] 黄玉真,吕琛,颜磊,李帅帅,张景雪,刘超,王银霞,桑岩岩,房鹛. 基于危险因素筛查的延续性院外管理对卵巢过度刺激综合征的预防效果[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2026, 64(4): 92-99.
[3] 中国医师协会骨科医师分会智能骨科学组,中华预防医学会脊柱疾病预防与控制专业委员会脊柱脊髓损伤疾病预防与控制学组. 人工智能脊柱退变影像学测量位点与标注专家共识(2025)[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2026, 64(2): 1-10.
[4] 逄锦宏,苏萍,乔俊鹏,陈巧巧,陈学禹,赵颖颖,施婕,孙晓茹,李秋春,何蕊言,范轶欧,迟蔚蔚. 老年人群可改变心血管危险因素聚集模式与脑卒中的关联[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(9): 11-19.
[5] 张政,王建伟,杨玉娟,张宇,宋西成. 哮喘儿童2008及2019年免疫球蛋白E变化及相关危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(7): 32-36.
[6] 李敬,郝盼盼. 急性心力衰竭患者出入院心率变化与预后相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(4): 75-82.
[7] 杨建平,管圣,戈小虎. 利福平浸泡移植物治疗布鲁氏菌感染的主/髂动脉瘤的临床经验[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(12): 17-25.
[8] 程震宇,来庆国,吴梦涛. 髂股静脉支架置入术后再狭窄的影响因素研究进展[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(12): 112-117.
[9] 程跃启,王斐,于理想,郑超,余之刚. 曲妥珠单抗致HER2阳性乳腺癌患者心脏毒性的研究进展[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(1): 17-24.
[10] 王浙宇,许懿,赵昌波,杨硕菲,倪其泓,陈佳佺,王韦仑,李一男,郭相江,叶猛,张岚,薛冠华. 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后发生髂支闭塞的危险因素及处理对策[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(9): 101-107.
[11] 郭鑫,孟君,郑世良,董秀红. 老年胃癌患者衰弱与人体成分的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(4): 40-47.
[12] 李建,孙云. 新入维持性血液透析患者2年内死亡的危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(4): 48-53.
[13] 宋甜田,李作坤,王书会. 个体化预测老年心脏瓣膜置换术后医院感染风险Nomogram模型的构建[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(1): 48-56.
[14] 曲永强,赵泽宇,吴兴原,韩玮,段瑞生,李衍滨,李亨. 颈动脉分叉处支架置入术后严重持续性低血压的危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(7): 78-82.
[15] 宋晗,王振华,韦铎亮,徐凯,李博文,赵鑫. 术前MELD分级对304例急性StandfordA型主动脉夹层患者术后早期结局的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(5): 31-36.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!