Dataset Information

Do Clinical Outcomes and Sagittal Parameters Differ Between Diabetics and Nondiabetics for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

ABSTRACT: Study Design:Retrospective cohort study. Objective:To assess the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on clinical and radiographic outcomes in patient with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion. Methods:Analysis of patients who underwent open posterior lumbar spinal fusion from 2011 to 2018. Patients being medically treated for DM were identified and separated from nondiabetic patients. Visual analogue scale Back/Leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference was evaluated. Lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL difference were measured on radiographs. Rates of postoperative complications were also collected. Results:A total of 850 patients were included; 78 (9.20%) diabetic patients and 772 (90.80%) nondiabetic patients. Final PI-LL difference was significantly larger (P = .032) for patients with diabetes compared to no diabetes, but there were no other significant differences between radiographic measurements, operative time, or postoperative length of stay. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Diabetic patients were found to have a higher rate of discharge to a facility following surgery (P = .018). No differences were observed in reoperation or postoperative complication. Conclusions:While diabetic patients had more associated comorbidities compared with nondiabetic patients, they had similar patient-reported and radiographic outcomes. Similarly, there are no differences in rates of reoperation or postoperative complications. This study indicates that diabetic patients who have undergone thorough preoperative screening of related comorbidities and appropriate selection should be considered for lumbar spinal fusion.

SUBMITTER: Khan JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7160811 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Clinical Outcomes and Sagittal Parameters Differ Between Diabetics and Nondiabetics for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

Khan Jannat M JM Michalski Joseph J Basques Bryce A BA Louie Philip K PK Chen Oscar O Hayani Zayd Z Kalish Chaim C Elboghdady Islam I Colman Matthew M An Howard H

Global spine journal 20190515 3

<h4>Study design</h4>Retrospective cohort study.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on clinical and radiographic outcomes in patient with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion.<h4>Methods</h4>Analysis of patients who underwent open posterior lumbar spinal fusion from 2011 to 2018. Patients being medically treated for DM were identified and separated from nondiabetic patients. Visual analogue scale Back/Leg pain and Oswestry Disabili ...[more]

PMID: 32313794

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew reports to date have evaluated the effects of different pedicle screw insertion depths on sagittal balance and prognosis after posterior lumbar interbody and fusion (PLIF) in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).MethodsA total of 88 patients with single-level PLIF for LDS from January 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled. Long screw group (Group L): 52 patients underwent long pedicle screw fixation (the leading edge of the screw exceeded 80% of the anteroposterior diameter of vertebral body). Short screw group (Group S): 36 patients underwent short pedicle screw fixation (the leading edge of the screw was less than 60% of the anteroposterior diameter of vertebral body). Local deformity parameters of spondylolisthesis including slip degree (SD) and segment lordosis (SL), spino-pelvic sagittal plane parameters including pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS) and lumbar lordosis (LL), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back pain of both groups were compared. Postoperative complications, including vertebral fusion rate and screw loosening rate, were recorded.ResultsExcept that PI in Group S at the final follow-up was not statistically different from the preoperative value (P > 0.05), other parameters were significantly improved compared with preoperative values one month after surgery and at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in parameters between Group L and Group S before and one month after surgery (P > 0.05). At the final follow-up, SD, SL, LL, PT and PI-LL differed significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the preoperative results, ODI and VAS in both groups decreased significantly one month after surgery and at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). Significant differences of ODI and VAS were found between the two groups at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were not statistically significant between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionsPLIF can significantly improve the prognosis of patients with LDS. In terms of outcomes with an average follow-up time of 2 years, the deeper the screw depth is within the safe range, the better the spino-pelvic sagittal balance may be restored and the better the quality of life may be.

Project description:ImportanceConflicting evidence and large practice variation are present in the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. More than 90% of surgical procedures in the United States include instrumented fusion compared with 50% or less in other countries.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the effectiveness of microdecompression alone is noninferior to decompression with instrumented fusion in a real-world setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter comparative effectiveness study with a noninferiority design assessed prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. From September 19, 2007, to December 21, 2015, 1376 patients at 35 Norwegian orthopedic and neurosurgical departments underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis without scoliosis. After excluding patients undergoing laminectomy alone, fusion without instrumentation, or surgery in more than 2 levels and those with a former operation at the index level, 794 patients were included in the analyses, regardless of missing or incomplete follow-up data, before propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March 20 to October 30, 2018.ExposuresMicrodecompression alone or decompression with instrumented fusion.Main outcomes and measuresA reduction from baseline of 30% or greater in the Oswestry Disability Index at 12-month follow-up.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 570 patients (413 female [72%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.5] years) were included for comparison, with 285 undergoing microdecompression (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.8] years; 205 female [72%]) and 285 undergoing decompression with instrumented fusion (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.2] years; 208 female [73%]). The proportion of each type of procedure varied between departments. However, changes in outcome scores varied within patients but not between departments. The proportion of patients with improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index of at least 30% was 150 of 219 (68%) in the microdecompression group and 155 of 215 (72%) in the instrumentation group. The 95% CI (-12% to 5%) for the difference of -4% was above the predefined margin of noninferiority (-15%). Microdecompression alone was associated with shorter operation time (mean [SD], 89 [44] vs 180 [65] minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (mean [SD], 2.5 [2.4] vs 6.4 [3.0] days; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, the clinical effectiveness of microdecompression alone was noninferior to that of decompression with instrumented fusion. Microdecompression alone was also associated with shorter durations of surgery and hospital stay, supporting the suggestion that the less invasive procedure should be considered for most patients.

Project description:Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is controversial. Surgery is widely used, but its effectiveness in comparison with that of nonsurgical treatment has not been demonstrated in controlled trials.Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores (100-point scales, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (100-point scale, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.We enrolled 304 patients in the randomized cohort and 303 in the observational cohort. The baseline characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. The one-year crossover rates were high in the randomized cohort (approximately 40% in each direction) but moderate in the observational cohort (17% crossover to surgery and 3% crossover to nonsurgical care). The intention-to-treat analysis for the randomized cohort showed no statistically significant effects for the primary outcomes. The as-treated analysis for both cohorts combined showed a significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that increased at 1 year and diminished only slightly at 2 years. The treatment effects at 2 years were 18.1 for bodily pain (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 21.7), 18.3 for physical function (95% CI, 14.6 to 21.9), and -16.7 for the Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI, -19.5 to -13.9). There was little evidence of harm from either treatment.In nonrandomized as-treated comparisons with careful control for potentially confounding baseline factors, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function during a period of 2 years than patients treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000409 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Project description:BackgroundPedicle screw invasion of the proximal articular process will cause local articular process degeneration and acceleration, which is an important factor affecting adjacent segment degeneration. Although lumbar spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for screw invasion of the proximal joint, there is no clear conclusion regarding the two different types of spondylolisthesis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the influence of pedicle screw placement on proximal facet invasion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and isthmic spondylolisthesis.MethodsIn total, 468 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by decompression and fusion in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Among them, 238 cases were degenerative spondylolisthesis (group A), and 230 cases were isthmic spondylolisthesis (group B). Sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, postoperative VAS and ODI scores at 1 month and 3 months, and angle of the proximal facet joint at the last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups. The degree of pedicle screw invasion of the proximal facet joint was graded and compared by the SEO grading method.ResultsThere were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative VAS and ODI scores, or proximal facet joint angle between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (P > 0.05). The VAS score of group A at the last follow-up was 1 (1,2). The VAS score of group B at the last follow-up was 3 (1,3). The ODI score of group A at the last follow-up was 6(4,26). The ODI score of group B at the last follow-up was 15(8,36). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups at the last follow-up were significantly different (P < 0.05). According to the SEO grading method, the invasion of the proximal articular process by pedicle screw placement in group A involved 320 cases in grade 0, 128 cases in grade I and 28 cases in grade II. In group B, there were 116 cases in grade 0, 248 cases in grade I and 96 cases in grade II, with a significant difference (P < 0.01).ConclusionIn summary, a certain number of cases involving screws invading the proximal facet joint occurred in the two different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, but the number in the isthmic spondylolisthesis group was significantly higher than that in the degenerative spondylolisthesis group, which caused more trauma to the proximal facet joint and significantly affected the patient prognosis.

Project description:Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database.To examine whether short- and long-term outcomes after surgery for lumbar stenosis (SPS) and degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) vary across centers.Surgery has been shown to be of benefit for both SPS and DS. For both conditions, surgery often consists of laminectomy with or without fusion. Potential differences in outcomes of these overlapping procedures across various surgical centers have not yet been investigated.Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial cohort participants with a confirmed diagnosis of SPS or DS undergoing surgery were followed from baseline at 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter, at 13 spine clinics in 11 US states. Baseline characteristics and short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.A total of 793 patients underwent surgery. Significant differences were found between centers with regard to patient race, body mass index, treatment preference, neurological deficit, stenosis location, severity, and number of stenotic levels. Significant differences were also found in operative duration and blood loss, the incidence of durotomy, the length of hospital stay, and wound infection. When baseline differences were adjusted for, significant differences were still seen between centers in changes in patient functional outcome (Short Form-36 bodily pain and physical function, and Oswestry Disability Index) at 1 year after surgery. In addition, the cumulative adjusted change in the Oswestry Disability Index Score at 4 years significantly differed among centers, with Short Form-36 scores trending toward significance.There is a broad and statistically significant variation in short- and long-term outcomes after surgery for SPS and DS across various academic centers, when statistically significant baseline differences are adjusted for. The findings suggest that the choice of center affects outcome after these procedures, although further studies are required to investigate which center characteristics are most important.

Project description:Retrospective subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data according to treatment received.The purpose of this study was to determine whether obesity affects treatment outcomes for lumbar stenosis (SpS) and degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).Obesity is thought to be associated with increased complications and potentially less favorable outcomes after the treatment of degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. This, however, remains a matter of debate in the existing literature.An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial for the treatment of SpS or DS. A comparison was made between patients with a body mass index (BMI) of less than 30 ("nonobese," n = 373 SpS and 376 DS) and those with a BMI of 30 or more ("obese," n = 261 SpS and 225 DS). Baseline patient characteristics, intraoperative data, and complications were documented. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and regular follow-up time intervals up to 4 years. The difference in improvement over baseline between surgical and nonsurgical treatment (i.e., treatment effect) was determined at each follow-up interval for the obese and nonobese groups.At 4-year follow-up, operative and nonoperative treatment provided improvement in all primary outcome measures over baseline in patients with BMI of less than 30 and 30 or more. For patients with SpS, there were no differences in the surgical complication or reoperation rates between groups. Patients with DS with BMI of 30 or more had a higher postoperative infection rate (5% vs. 1%, P = 0.05) and twice the reoperation rate at 4-year follow-up (20% vs. 11%, P = 0.01) than those with BMI of less than 30. At 4 years, surgical treatment of SpS and DS was equally effective in both BMI groups in terms of the primary outcome measures, with the exception that obese patients with DS had less improvement from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical function score than nonobese patients (22.6 vs. 27.9, P = 0.022). With nonoperative treatment, patients with SpS with BMI of 30 or more did worse in regard to all 3 primary outcome measures, and patients with DS with BMI of 30 or more had similar SF-36 bodily pain scores but less improvement over baseline in the SF-36 physical function and Oswestry Disability Index scores. Treatment effects for SpS and DS were significant within each BMI group for all primary outcome measures in favor of surgery. Obese patients had a significantly greater treatment effect than nonobese patients with SpS (Oswestry Disability Index, P = 0.037) and DS (SF-36 PF, P = 0.004) largely due to the relatively poor outcome of nonoperative treatment in obese patients.Obesity does not affect the clinical outcome of operative treatment of SpS. There are higher rates of infection and reoperation and less improvement from baseline in the SF-36 physical function score in obese patients after surgery for DS. Nonoperative treatment may not be as effective in obese patients with SpS or DS.

Dataset Information

Do Clinical Outcomes and Sagittal Parameters Differ Between Diabetics and Nondiabetics for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

Publications

Do Clinical Outcomes and Sagittal Parameters Differ Between Diabetics and Nondiabetics for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure