Do Diabetic Patients Have Poorer Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

被引:0
|
作者
Thever, Yogen [1 ,2 ]
Lincoln, Liow Ming Han [1 ]
Gatot, Cheryl [1 ]
Cheong, Reuben Soh hee [1 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, 20 Coll Rd, Acad Level 4, Singapore 169865, Singapore
来源
关键词
diabetes; lumbar fusion; minimally invasive; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; fusion rates; outcomes; satisfaction; quality of life; SPINAL SURGERY;
D O I
10.14444/8535
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The number of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) seeking treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis is expected to increase. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and subjective measures in patients with DM following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). The present study aimed to compare PROs, satisfaction, and radiological fusion between DM and non -DM patients following MIS- TLIF. Methods: The authors identified 30 patients with DM who underwent primary, single -level MIS- TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis from a spine registry. Each patient was matched 1:1 with 30 controls without DM using propensity scores to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and baseline PROs. Visual analog scale leg pain, back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF -36 physical component score and mental component scores were compared at 1, 3, 6, and 24 months. Patients also completed a satisfaction questionnaire during these visits. Radiographic fusion was analyzed according to Bridwell grades. Results: There was no difference in PROs between non -DM and DM patients at 2 years. However, a higher proportion of non -DM patients attained minimal clinically important difference for ODI (90.0% vs 66.7% P = 0.028) and SF -36 physical component score (90.0% vs 53.3% P = 0.002) at 3 months and ODI (96.7% vs 80.0%) at 6 months. A similar proportion of patients in each group were satisfied and had expectations fulfilled. A higher proportion of non -DM patients attained a grade 1 or 2 fusion (93.3%), as compared with DM patients (80.0%), although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.129). Conclusions: DM patients have poorer initial PROs, which reach comparable levels to those in non -DM patients in the longer -term. Fusion rates of DM patients were poorer compared with non -DM patients.
引用
收藏
页码:708 / 714
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Minimally invasive tubular surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kimball, Jon
    Yew, Andrew
    Getachew, Ruth
    Lu, Daniel C.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35
  • [32] MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION WITH EXPANDABLE CAGES
    Buckland, Aaron J.
    Proctor, Dylan J.
    JBJS ESSENTIAL SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 13 (02):
  • [33] History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Prabhu, Michael C.
    Jacob, Kevin C.
    Patel, Madhav R.
    Pawlowski, Hanna
    Vanjani, Nisheka N.
    Singh, Kern
    NEUROSPINE, 2022, 19 (03) : 479 - 491
  • [34] Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis
    Massie, Lara W.
    Zakaria, Hesham Mostafa
    Schultz, Lonni R.
    Basheer, Azam
    Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele
    Chang, Victor
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2018, 44 (01)
  • [35] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spine
    Chaudhary, Kshitij S.
    Groff, Michael W.
    TECHNIQUES IN ORTHOPAEDICS, 2011, 26 (03) : 146 - 155
  • [36] The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Lawton, C. D.
    Smith, Z. A.
    Barnawi, A.
    Fessler, R. G.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL SCIENCES, 2011, 55 (03) : 259 - 264
  • [37] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Outpatient Setting
    Emami, Arash
    Faloon, Michael
    Issa, Kimona
    Shafa, Eiman
    Pourtaheri, Sina
    Sinha, Kumar
    Hwang, Ki S.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2016, 39 (06) : E1218 - E1222
  • [38] Two-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Expandable Interbody Spacers Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Study
    Kim, Choll
    Cohen, Dan S.
    Smith, Mark D.
    Dix, Gary A.
    Luna, Ingrid Y.
    Joshua, Gita
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 14 (04): : 518 - 526
  • [39] Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive surgery during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion/posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Heary, Robert F.
    Kaiser, Michael G.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 24 (03) : 413 - 414
  • [40] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity
    Lau, Darryl
    Ziewacz, John
    Park, Paul
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 20 (01) : 80 - 83