{"title":"Minimally Invasive versus Open Thoracolumbar Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients with Diabetes: A CSORN Study","authors":"Kalpesh Hathi","doi":"10.18502/jsp.v1i1.9773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study was aimed at comparing outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) versus OPEN surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes. \nMethodology: This retrospective cohort study included patients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database. Outcomes of MIS and OPEN approaches were compared for two cohorts: (i) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS, n = 58, OPEN, n = 58) and (ii) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS, n = 54, OPEN, n = 54). Mixed measures analyses of covariance compared modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain at one-year post operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at one year were compared. \nResult: MIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 99.66 mL, p = 0.002; with fusion difference 244.23, p < 0.001) and shorter LOS (decompression alone difference 1.15 days, p = 0.008; with fusion difference 1.23 days, p = 0.026). MIS compared to OPEN decompression with fusion had less patients experience an adverse event (difference, 13 patients, p = 0.007). The MIS decompression with fusion group had lower one-year mODI (difference, 14.25, p < 0.001) and back pain (difference, 1.64, p = 0.002) compared to OPEN. More patients in the MIS decompression with fusion group exceeded MCID at one year for mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, p = 0.028) and back pain (MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, p = 0.017). \nConclusion: MIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.","PeriodicalId":199836,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spine Practice (JSP)","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spine Practice (JSP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jsp.v1i1.9773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This study was aimed at comparing outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) versus OPEN surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes.
Methodology: This retrospective cohort study included patients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database. Outcomes of MIS and OPEN approaches were compared for two cohorts: (i) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS, n = 58, OPEN, n = 58) and (ii) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS, n = 54, OPEN, n = 54). Mixed measures analyses of covariance compared modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain at one-year post operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at one year were compared.
Result: MIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 99.66 mL, p = 0.002; with fusion difference 244.23, p < 0.001) and shorter LOS (decompression alone difference 1.15 days, p = 0.008; with fusion difference 1.23 days, p = 0.026). MIS compared to OPEN decompression with fusion had less patients experience an adverse event (difference, 13 patients, p = 0.007). The MIS decompression with fusion group had lower one-year mODI (difference, 14.25, p < 0.001) and back pain (difference, 1.64, p = 0.002) compared to OPEN. More patients in the MIS decompression with fusion group exceeded MCID at one year for mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, p = 0.028) and back pain (MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, p = 0.017).
Conclusion: MIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.
本研究旨在比较微创(MIS)与开放式手术治疗糖尿病患者腰椎管狭窄(LSS)的结果。方法:这项回顾性队列研究纳入了在加拿大脊柱结局与研究网络(CSORN)数据库中接受单独脊柱减压或LSS融合治疗的糖尿病患者。比较两个队列的MIS和OPEN入路的结果:(i)单独接受减压的糖尿病患者(N = 116;MIS, n = 58, OPEN, n = 58)和(ii)行减压融合的糖尿病患者(n = 108;MIS, n = 54, OPEN, n = 54)。混合测量协方差分析比较改良Oswestry残疾指数(mODI)和术后1年的背部和腿部疼痛。比较一年内达到最小临床重要差异(MCID)或最小疼痛/残疾的患者人数。结果:MIS入路失血量少(单独减压差99.66 mL, p = 0.002;融合差244.23天,p < 0.001), LOS较短(单纯减压差1.15天,p = 0.008;融合差1.23天,p = 0.026)。与OPEN减压融合相比,MIS出现不良事件的患者较少(差异为13例,p = 0.007)。与OPEN相比,MIS减压融合组一年的mODI(差异为14.25,p < 0.001)和背部疼痛(差异为1.64,p = 0.002)较低。MIS减压融合组有更多患者在一年内因mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, p = 0.028)和背痛(MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, p = 0.017)而超过MCID。结论:对于接受LSS减压融合的糖尿病患者,MIS入路与更有利的预后相关。