European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 55–60 | Cite as

Minimally invasive spinal decompression surgery in diabetic patients: perioperative risks, complications and clinical outcomes compared with non-diabetic patients’ cohort

  • G. J. RegevEmail author
  • R. Lador
  • K. Salame
  • L. Mangel
  • A. Cohen
  • Z. Lidar
Original Article



Prior studies have documented an increased complication rate in diabetic patients undergoing spinal surgery. However, the impact of diabetes on the risk of postoperative complications and clinical outcome following minimally invasive spinal (MIS) decompression is not well understood.


To compare complication rates and outcomes of MIS decompression in diabetic patients with a cohort of non-diabetic patients undergoing similar procedures.


Medical records of 48 patients with diabetes and 151 control patients that underwent minimally invasive lumbar decompression between April 2009 and July 2014 at our institute were reviewed and compared. Past medical history, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, perioperative mortality, complication and revision surgeries rates were analyzed. Patient outcomes included: the visual analog scale and the EQ-5D scores.


The mean age was 68.58 ± 11 years in the diabetic group and 51.7 ± 17.7 years in the control group. No major postoperative complications were recorded in either group. Both groups were statistically equivalent in their postoperative length of stay, minor complications and revision rates. Both groups showed significant improvement in their outcome scores following surgery.


Our results indicate that minimally invasive decompressive surgery is a safe and effective treatment for diabetic patients and does not pose an increased risk of complications. Future prospective studies are necessary to validate the specific advantages of the minimally invasive techniques in the diabetic population.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Diabetes mellitus Minimally invasive Spinal decompression Complications 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5716_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (139 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 139 kb)


  1. 1.
    Chen S, Anderson MV, Cheng WK, Wongworawat MD (2009) Diabetes associated with increased surgical site infections in spinal arthrodesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(7):1670–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golinvaux NS, Varthi AG, Bohl DD, Basques BA, Grauer JN (2014) Complication rates following elective lumbar fusion in patients with diabetes: insulin dependence makes the difference. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(21):1809–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guzman JZ, Iatridis JC, Skovrlj B, Cutler HS, Hecht AC, Qureshi SA et al (2014) Outcomes and complications of diabetes mellitus on patients undergoing degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(19):1596–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim CH, Chung CK, Shin S, Choi BR, Kim MJ, Park BJ et al (2015) The relationship between diabetes and the reoperation rate after lumbar spinal surgery: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J 15(5):866–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma A, Muir R, Johnston R, Carter E, Bowden G, Wilson-MacDonald J (2013) Diabetes is predictive of longer hospital stay and increased rate of complications in spinal surgery in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(4):275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, Zwienenberg-Lee M, Alamin T et al (2006) Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP (2008) Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg MIN 51(2):100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ (2014) Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21(2):179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T (1996) ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth 77(2):217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EuroQol G (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S146–S154Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collaboration NCDRF (2016) Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants. Lancet 387(10027):1513–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagot-Campagna A, Bourdel-Marchasson I, Simon D (2005) Burden of diabetes in an aging population: prevalence, incidence, mortality, characteristics and quality of care. Diabetes Metab 31(Spec No 2):5S35–5S52Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anekstein Y, Smorgick Y, Lotan R, Agar G, Shalmon E, Floman Y et al (2010) Diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for the development of lumbar spinal stenosis. Isr Med Assoc J 12(1):16–20Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asadian L, Haddadi K, Aarabi M, Zare A (2016) Diabetes mellitus, a new risk factor for lumbar spinal stenosis: a case-control study. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes 9:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glassman SD, Alegre G, Carreon L, Dimar JR, Johnson JR (2003) Perioperative complications of lumbar instrumentation and fusion in patients with diabetes mellitus. Spine J 3(6):496–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simpson JM, Silveri CP, Balderston RA, Simeone FA, An HS (1993) The results of operations on the lumbar spine in patients who have diabetes mellitus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(12):1823–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Browne JA, Cook C, Pietrobon R, Bethel MA, Richardson WJ (2007) Diabetes and early postoperative outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(20):2214–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phan K, Mobbs RJ (2016) Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(2):E91–E100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regev GJ, Kim CW, Salame K, Behrbalk E, Keynan O, Lador R et al (2017) A comparison of different minimally invasive and open posterior spinal procedures using volumetric measurements of the surgical exposures. Clin Spine Surg 30(9):425–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG (2009) Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 11(4):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasouli MR, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Shokraneh F, Moradi-Lakeh M, Chou R (2014) Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD010328Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR (2014) Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1727–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burton D (2004) Endocrine and metabolic response to surgery. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 4(5):144–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Armaghani SJ, Archer KR, Rolfe R, Demaio DN, Devin CJ (2016) Diabetes is related to worse patient-reported outcomes at two years following spine surgery. JBJS 98(1):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cancienne JM, Werner BC, Chen DQ, Hassanzadeh H, Shimer AL (2017) Perioperative hemoglobin A1c as a predictor of deep infection following single level lumbar decompression in patients with diabetes. Spine J 17(8):1100–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spine Surgery Unit, Department of NeurosurgeryTel-Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations