Minimally invasive spinal decompression surgery in diabetic patients: perioperative risks, complications and clinical outcomes compared with non-diabetic patients’ cohort
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.
KeywordsDiabetes mellitus Minimally invasive Spinal decompression Complications
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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
- 11.Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S146–S154Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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