ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Major neurological deficit following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) is a rare event, with incidences of up to 0.2 % now reported. Post-operative MRI is mandatory to assess for ongoing compression of the cord. In the past, the deficit has often been attributed to oedema or overzealous intra-operative manipulation of the cord. Reperfusion injury is a more recent concept. We describe a case of acute cervical disc prolapse with progressive neurology, and the difficult decision making one is faced with when the neurological deficit continues to deteriorate post ACDF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 30-year-old male was referred from the Emergency Department with acute left arm paraesthesia and left leg weakness. A cerebrovascular accident was ruled-out with a CT of the brain, and later an MRI of the cervical spine revealed a large C6/7 disc prolapse with significant compression of the spinal cord. A C6/7 ACDF was performed, but post-operatively the patient could no longer move his lower limbs. An urgent MRI was obtained which showed removal of the disc fragment, cord signal changes and the suggestion of ongoing cord compression. In part, this was due to his narrow cervical canal. The decision was made to proceed to posterior decompression and stabilisation, although cord reperfusion injury was one of the differential diagnoses considered at this stage. RESULTS: Post-operatively the patient's neurology started to improve over the next 48 h. He was discharged from in-patient rehabilitation at 2 months post-surgery and by 3 months he had returned to work. Latest follow-up revealed normal function with only mild paraesthesia in the T1 dermatome of his left arm. CONCLUSION: The management of patients in whom a neurological deficit has increased post-operatively is difficult. Urgent MRI scan is mandatory to assess for epidural haematoma which may need further decompression. Cord reperfusion injury is a diagnosis of exclusion. The difficulty the clinician faces is in interpreting the MRI for 'acceptable' decompression, and therefore excluding the need for further surgery.
