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

被引:1
|
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
  • [21] Incidence of graft extrusion following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Bakhsheshian, Joshua
    Khanna, Ryan
    Choy, Winward
    Lawton, Cort D.
    Nixon, Alex T.
    Wong, Albert P.
    Koski, Tyler R.
    Liu, John C.
    Song, John K.
    Dandaleh, Nader S.
    Smith, Zachary A.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 24 : 88 - 93
  • [22] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients
    Terman, Samuel W.
    Yee, Timothy. J.
    Lau, Darryl
    Khan, Adam A.
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2014, 20 (06) : 644 - 652
  • [23] Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Diseases: A Matched Case-Control
    Shi, Liang
    Ding, Tao
    Shi, Yihua
    Wang, Fang
    Wu, Chengcong
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 167 : E1231 - E1240
  • [24] Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Park, Chun-Kun
    Hur, Jung-Woo
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2019, 59 (06) : 222 - 230
  • [25] Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Khechen, Benjamin
    Haws, Brittany E.
    Patel, Dil V.
    Yoo, Joon S.
    Guntin, Jordan A.
    Cardinal, Kaitlyn L.
    Iyer, Sravisht
    Singh, Kern
    HSS JOURNAL, 2020, 16 (01) : 46 - 53
  • [26] Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Zhang, Hao
    Zhou, Chuanli
    Wang, Chao
    Zhu, Kai
    Tu, Qihao
    Kong, Meng
    Zhao, Chong
    Ma, Xuexiao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2021, 14 : 549 - 558
  • [27] Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS® Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Wang, Michael Y.
    Chang, Hsuan Kan
    Grossman, Jay
    NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 83 (04) : 827 - 834
  • [28] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-indications and clinical experience
    Hari, Akshay
    Krishna, Murali
    Rajagandhi, Santhosh
    Rajakumar, Deshpande V.
    NEUROLOGY INDIA, 2016, 64 (03) : 444 - 454
  • [29] Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Meng Ge
    Yuan Zhang
    Hang Ying
    Chenchen Feng
    Yanlei Li
    Jinlong Tian
    Tingxiao Zhao
    Haiyu Shao
    Yazeng Huang
    International Orthopaedics, 2022, 46 : 2063 - 2070
  • [30] Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Ge, Meng
    Zhang, Yuan
    Ying, Hang
    Feng, Chenchen
    Li, Yanlei
    Tian, Jinlong
    Zhao, Tingxiao
    Shao, Haiyu
    Huang, Yazeng
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2022, 46 (09) : 2063 - 2070