AI Article Synopsis
- - This study compared the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OPEN) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in diabetic patients, using data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN).
- - Results showed that MIS patients had less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer adverse events compared to those who underwent OPEN surgery, particularly in decompression with fusion cases.
- - Additionally, MIS patients reported better functional outcomes and pain relief one year post-operation, with a higher percentage achieving significant improvements in disability and back pain.
Article Abstract
Study Design: Retrospective cohort.
Objectives: To compare outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs open surgery (OPEN) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes.
Methods: Patients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database were included. MIS vs OPEN outcomes were compared for 2 cohorts: (1) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS n = 58 and OPEN n = 58), (2) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS n = 54 and OPEN n = 54). Modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain were compared at baseline, 6-18 weeks, and 1-year post-operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at 1-year was compared.
Results: MIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 100 mL, = .002; with fusion difference 244 mL, < .001) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (decompression alone difference 1.2 days, = .008; with fusion difference 1.2 days, = .026). MIS compared to OPEN decompression with fusion had less patients experiencing adverse events (AEs) (difference 13 patients, = .007). The MIS decompression with fusion group had lower 1-year mODI (difference 14.5, 95% CI [7.5, 21.0], < .001) and back pain (difference 1.6, 95% CI [.6, 2.7], = .002) compared to OPEN. More patients in the MIS decompression with fusion group exceeded MCID at 1-year for mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, = .028) and back pain (MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, = .017).
Conclusions: MIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10448101 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211042576 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Safe distances for transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion under one-hole split endoscopy: three-dimensional reconstruction measurement of 1-degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at the L segment.
J Orthop Surg Res
January 2025
Department of Spine Surgery, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No. 661, Huanghe Er Road, Binzhou, 256603, Shandong, China.
Background: One-hole split endoscopy (OSE) is a novel endoscopic technique that offers some advantages in spinal surgery. However, without a clear understanding of the safe zone for OSE, surgeons risk injuring nerve roots during the procedure. This study aimed to measure the safe distances among critical bone markers, the intervertebral space and nerve roots between 1-degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) and non-DLS at the L segment in patients via three-dimensional reconstruction and to compare the differences in relevant safety distances between the two groups.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAre Randomized Trials Better? Comparison of Baseline Covariate Balance of a Propensity Score-Balanced Lumbar Spine IDE Trial and Comparable RCTs.
Global Spine J
January 2025
Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Department of Neurosurgery, Swedish Health Services, Seattle, WA, USA.
Study Design: Prospective Observational Propensity Score.
Objectives: Randomization may lead to bias when the treatment is unblinded and there is a strong patient preference for treatment arms (such as in spinal device trials). This report describes the rationale and methods utilized to develop a propensity score (PS) model for an investigational device exemption (IDE) trial (NCT03115983) to evaluate decompression and stabilization with an investigational dynamic sagittal tether (DST) vs decompression and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for patients with symptomatic grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis.
Smartphone accelerometers as tools to study the effect of socioeconomic disparities in neurosurgical outcomes: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis.
J Neurosurg Spine
January 2025
1Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and.
Objective: Smartphones and wearable devices can be effective tools to objectively assess patient mobility and well-being before and after spine surgery. In this retrospective observational study, the authors investigated the relationship between these longitudinal perioperative patient activity data and socioeconomic and demographic correlates, assessing whether smartphone-captured metrics may allow neurosurgeons to distinguish intergroup patterns.
Methods: A multi-institutional retrospective study of patients who underwent spinal decompression with and without fusion between 2017 and 2021 was conducted.
Proximal junctional disease 5 years after surgery for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparing PLIF versus minimally invasive decompression.
Eur Spine J
January 2025
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the incidence of radiological adjacent segment disease (R-ASD) at L3/4 between patients with L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) who underwent L4/5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and those who underwent microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach (MBDU) at L4/5. Our ultimate goal was to distinguish the course of natural lumbar degeneration from fusion-related degeneration while eliminating L4/5 decompression as a confounder.
Methods: Ninety patients with L4/5 DS who underwent L4/5 PLIF (n = 53) or MBDU (n = 37) and were followed for at least 5 years were retrospectively analyzed.
The Importance of Preserving the Posterior Ligament Complex in Elective Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Early Results from a Single-Center Experience.
Cureus
December 2024
Department of Neurosurgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, USA.
Background: Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a degenerative condition at the segment adjacent to a previously fused segment. Potential risk factors for ASD, such as posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) integrity between the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and the first unfused segment (UIV+1), have not been addressed. The objective of this study is to assess the PLC integrity between the UIV and UIV+1 following posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!