STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the severity of lumbar disc degeneration disease (LDDD). METHODS: We included 199 patients with low back pain (LBP) who visited our hospital from 2016 to 2018. All patients were divided into 3 groups as per inclusion criteria. Group A, patients without DM (n = 75); group B, patients with controlled DM (n = 72); and group C, patients with uncontrolled DM (n = 52). The patients were further subdivided into group B1, DM duration ≤10 years (n = 38); group B2, DM duration >10 years (n = 34); group C1 DM duration ≤10 years (n = 28); and group C2, DM duration >10 years (n = 24). Sex, age, body mass index, occupation, smoking history, alcohol use, and duration of T2DM were recorded. The severity of LDDD was evaluated using the 5-level Pfirrmann grading system. Operated patients' disc materials were sent for histological examination. RESULTS: Demographic data showed no difference among groups (P > 0.5), except age. Patients with DM showed more severe disc degeneration compared with patients without DM. The average Pfirrmann scores between groups A and B1 had no difference; groups B2, C1, and C2 showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than group A (P < 0.05). Groups B2 and C2 showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than groups B1 and C1 (P < 0.05). Groups C1 and C2 showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than groups B1 and B2 (P < 0.05). The severity of LDDD was significantly related to DM duration in both groups B and C (P < 0.05). DM groups showed increased disc apoptosis and matrix aggrecan fragmentation, disc glycosaminoglycan content and histological analysis were significantly different; the results are similar to Pfirrmann score results. CONCLUSIONS: DM duration >10 years and uncontrolled DM were risk factors for LDDD.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the severity of lumbar disc degeneration disease (LDDD). METHODS: We included 199 patients with low back pain (LBP) who visited our hospital from 2016 to 2018. All patients were divided into 3 groups as per inclusion criteria. Group A, patients without DM (n = 75); group B, patients with controlled DM (n = 72); and group C, patients with uncontrolled DM (n = 52). The patients were further subdivided into group B1, DM duration ≤10 years (n = 38); group B2, DM duration >10 years (n = 34); group C1 DM duration ≤10 years (n = 28); and group C2, DM duration >10 years (n = 24). Sex, age, body mass index, occupation, smoking history, alcohol use, and duration of T2DM were recorded. The severity of LDDD was evaluated using the 5-level Pfirrmann grading system. Operated patients' disc materials were sent for histological examination. RESULTS: Demographic data showed no difference among groups (P > 0.5), except age. Patients with DM showed more severe disc degeneration compared with patients without DM. The average Pfirrmann scores between groups A and B1 had no difference; groups B2, C1, and C2 showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than group A (P < 0.05). Groups B2 and C2 showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than groups B1 and C1 (P < 0.05). Groups C1 and C2 showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than groups B1 and B2 (P < 0.05). The severity of LDDD was significantly related to DM duration in both groups B and C (P < 0.05). DM groups showed increased disc apoptosis and matrix aggrecan fragmentation, disc glycosaminoglycan content and histological analysis were significantly different; the results are similar to Pfirrmann score results. CONCLUSIONS: DM duration >10 years and uncontrolled DM were risk factors for LDDD.
In 2014, the World Health Organization estimated the prevalence of diabetes among
Indian adults over 18 years of age to be 11.8%. There are an estimated 72.96 million
cases of diabetes in the adult population of India.
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with high blood glucose levels that
result from insulin secretory defects or insulin resistance. There are 2 main types
of DM, types 1 and 2. Approximately 90% of all cases of DM are type 2. Diabetes is a
multiorgan disease that affects many types of connective tissues, including bone and cartilage.
Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of certain musculoskeletal
pathologies. Prolonged and frequent complications of diabetes include diabetic
neuropathy, with symptoms such as pain and sensory and motor deficits in the legs.Lumbar disc degeneration disease (LDDD) is caused by vertebral space reduction, which
can be due to new bone formation or hypertrophic tissue changes. LDDD is a major
contributor to back and radicular pain, resulting imbalance in catabolic and
anabolic responses leads to the degeneration of intervertebral disc tissues, as well
as disc herniation and radicular pain. The process usually begins with water loss or
reduction in water content, followed by a hard disc protrusion.The changes in the intervertebral disc play a primary role in the pathophysiology of
LDDD. Age-related changes in the cartilage matrix in patients with diabetes are
different from the changes in healthy subjects.
These changes may lead to faster disc degeneration in patients with diabetes.
In some studies, significant differences were observed in the incidence of diabetes
in patients who have spinal stenosis compared with the degenerative disc disease.
Additionally, diabetes causes the ossification of the posterior longitudinal
ligaments and bone, which leads to spinal stenosis and nerve pressure.[6,7] Therefore, diabetes can be
considered a risk factor for spinal stenosis, although the mechanism of the risk for
spinal stenosis in patients with diabetes is not well defined.[8,9] Approximately 13% of patients
who undergo lumbar disc surgery were diagnosed with diabetes, whereas the prevalence
of diabetes in the same population generally was approximately 8%.Diabetic microangiopathy might affect the nutrition of the spine and lead to disc degeneration.
With the increasing occurrence of diabetes and the similarity of symptoms of
spinal stenosis and diabetic neuropathy, one growing problem in the medical care of
these patients is the lack of timely detection of stenosis, which causes several
complications. However, the relationship between DM and LDDD remains unclear, and
different results have been achieved. In this retrospective study, we determined the
prevalence and association of DM with LDDD using the 5-level Pfirrmann scoring
system and histopathological evidence.
Methods
This was a retrospective study that was conducted from 2016 to 2018 at a single
institution in India. Prior to the study being initiated, approval was obtained from
the ethics committee at our institution.Age ≥20 and ≤65 yearsNo previous conservative or surgical treatment historySpine magnetic resonance imaging scan (no lumbar abnormality other than
lumbar degenerative spondylosis)Nonsmoker/no tobacco chewingNo other comorbidityType 1 DMHistory of extreme spinal loading occupationHistory of spinal trauma or fracture
Exclusion Criteria
A total of 199 consecutive patients were included in this study as per criteria.
Group A included patients without DM (n = 75). Patients with DM were divided
into 2 groups: group B, a well-controlled group (n = 72) and group C, a poorly
controlled group (n = 52). Group B was subdivided into group B1, patients with
DM duration ≤10 years (n = 38), group B2, DM duration >10 years (n = 34).
Similarly, group C was subdivided into group C1, DM duration ≤10 years (n = 28)
and group C2, DM duration >10 years (n = 24). Demographic data, DM duration,
and clinical-radiological data were recorded. The criteria for a diagnosis of
diabetes were fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or in a patient with classic
symptoms of hyperglycemia or hyperglycemic crisis, random plasma glucose ≥200
mg/dL, or HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) ≥6.5%.Standing lumbar anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs and magnetic
resonance imaging of the lumbar spine were performed for LDDD scoring. Grading
of the lumbar disc was performed using T2-weighted sagittal images by a senior
radiologist blinded to the patient’s demographic information. The 5-level
Pfirmann grading system was used (Table 1). Patients with failed
conservative management were managed operatively, various decompression/ spine
stabilizing procedure (laminectomy and decompression, transforaminal lumbar
interbody fusion) performed according to patients clinical finding. The patients
who were operated for LDDD their disc material was sent for histopathological
and quantitative immunofluorescence analysis.
Table 1.
Pfirrmann Grades.
Grade
Structure
Distinction of nucleus and annulus
Signal intensity
Disc height
Sagittal T2 magnetic resonance image
I
Homogeneous, with bright white band
Clear
Hyperintense
Normal
II
Inhomogeneous with or without bright white band
Clear
Hyperintense
Normal
III
Inhomogeneous with gray band
Unclear
Intermittent
Normal to slightly decreased
IV
Inhomogeneous with a dark gray band
Lost
Intermittent to hypointense
Slightly or moderately decreased
V
Inhomogeneous with a dark gray band
Lost
Hypointense
Disc space is collapsed
Pfirrmann Grades.
Histopathological and Quantitative Immunofluorescence Analysis
For histological analysis, the lumbar disc material was fixed with 2%
paraformaldehyde overnight at 48 °C (Tissue Tec processors and Leica embedder).
Four-millimeter sections were stained with safranin-O and fast green dyes
(Fisher Scientific) by standard procedure and photographed under 40× to 200×
magnifications.Proteoglycan synthesisQuantitative immunofluorescenceApoptosis assay
Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 (IBM Corp). All data is
presented as means ± standard deviations or percentages. The clinical
characteristics were compared between patients with and without DM using general
linear model analysis for continuous variables and chi-square tests for
categorical data. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was adopted to
identify the relationship between the DM and severity of LDDD. Estimated average
Pfirrmann scores concerning the presence of DM were calculated by analysis of
covariance.
Results
A total of 199 adult patients were included with an average age of 55.2 ± 7.9 years
(range 20-65 years). There were no significant differences between all groups for
sex, body mass index, and other comorbidities (P > 0.05), except
for age (P < 0.05) (Table 2). Average Pfirrmann scores from
L1/L2 to L5/S1 of patients with good control of DM and DM duration ≤10 years showed
no significant difference with patients without DM (P > 0.05)
(Table 3). Patients
with poor control of DM or DM duration >10 years showed higher average Pfirrmann
scores than patients without DM (P < 0.05). Patients with a
longer DM duration showed higher average Pfirrmann scores than patients with a
shorter disease course (P < 0.05).The average Pfirrmann scores
of patients with a poor control of DM were higher than the ones with good control of
DM (P < 0.05). By utilizing Spearman correlation analysis to
investigate the effect of DM duration on LDDD, a positive trend was observed between
DM duration and severity of disc degeneration at L1/2 (r = 0.253),
L2/3 (r = 0.456), L3/4 (r = 0.362), L4/5
(r = 0.335), and L5/S1 (r = 0.426) in the
group with good DM control and L1/2 (r = 0.210), L2/3
(r = 0.338), L3/4 (r = 0.217), L4/5
(r = 0.239), and L5/S1 (r = 0.328) in the
group with poor DM control (P < 0.05).
Table 2.
Demographic Data of Different Groups.
No DM
Controlled DM
Uncontrolled DM
B1
B2
C1
C2
n
75
38
34
28
24
Age, years, mean ± SD
55.2 ± 7.9
58.8 ± 6.9
61.2 ± 7.2
59.1 ± 7.9
61.8 ± 7.2
BMI, kg/m2, mean ± SD
18.9 ± 2.2
20.0 ± 1.7
19.1 ± 1.3
18.0 ± 1.9
19.1 ± 1.6
HbA1c, %
5.6 ± 0.2
6.6 ± 0.4
6.7 ± 0.4
7.5 ± 0.6
7.7 ± 0.5
Duration of DM, years, mean ± SD
—
6.3 ± 0.7
12.1 ± 1.2
7.2 ± 1.1
13.1 ± 1.5
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; DM,
diabetes mellitus.
Table 3.
Average Pfirrmann Scores of Different Discs.
No DM
Controlled DM
Uncontrolled DM
B1
B2
C1
C2
n
75
38
34
28
24
L1-L2
2.84 ± 0.91
2.89 ± 0.73
3.28 ± 0.56
3.30 ± 0.65
3.62 ± 0.80
L2-L3
2.85 ± 0.83
2.90 ± 0.65
3.32 ± 0.73
3.33 ± 0.62
3.68 ± 0.94
L3-L4
2.89 ± 0.12
3.01 ± 0.92
3.36 ± 0.72
3.39 ± 0.78
3.71 ± 0.96
L4-L5
2.90 ± 0.64
3.04 ± 0.75
3.39 ± 0.91
3.47 ± 0.90
3.80 ± 0.71
L5-S1
2.93 ± 0.88
3.09 ± 0.61
3.46 ± 0.71
3.48 ± 0.74
3.82 ± 0.82
Demographic Data of Different Groups.Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; DM,
diabetes mellitus.Average Pfirrmann Scores of Different Discs.
Result of Histopathological and Quantitative Immunofluorescence
Analysis
Glycosaminoglycan Content
The DMMB (dimethylmethylene blue) assay was performed to measure disc
glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content. The GAG amount and level in lumbar discs in
all groups was not significantly different after controlling for patient
age. This finding was qualitatively confirmed by safranin-O/fast green
histological staining.
Proteoglycan Synthesis
Proteoglycan (PG) synthesis was assessed by measuring 35S-sulfate
incorporation into disc tissue using a disc organotypic culture system. A
significant reduction of PG synthesis was noted in DM patients.
Immunoblot Analysis of Aggrecan Fragments
To investigate if disc matrix degradation was caused by increased aggrecan
cleavage, Western blot analysis was performed on disc material of all
groups. The amount of disc aggrecan fragments was significantly higher in
patients with DM. In particular, the most significant elevation in the
number of fragments was noted in patients with a longer duration of diabetes
and more poorly controlled diabetes.
Quantitative Immunofluorescence
As ADAMTS seemed to be primarily involved in PG breakdown within the disc,
and thus potentially implicated in LDDD, quantitative immunofluorescence
with anti-ADAMTS antibodies was performed to identify which isoform could be
mainly responsible for aggrecan degradation. More specifically, ADAMTS4 and
ADAMTS5 protein expression were investigated in disc sections. These
proteins were significantly higher in DM patients, and were noted to be most
significantly elevated in patients with longer duration of diabetes and
poorly controlled diabetes.
Discussion
Diabetes is one of the common conditions that causes metabolic disturbances in many
organs. Degenerative disc disease is a serious health care problem. It can be a
cause of moderate to severe pain, affecting the patient’s quality of life as well as
increasing health care costs.
It is important to clarify the risk factors of LDDD to prevent or delay its
onset or progression. This study was the first to use the Pfirrmann grading system
to evaluate the association between DM and LDDD with histopathological evidence. In
this study, we included patients without DM and patients with different durations
and different control effects of DM for comparisons. After removing the effect of
age, our study demonstrated that patients with DM tended to develop more severe LDDD
than those without DM. The length of DM duration had a positive relationship with
severity of LDDD, which meant that the longer the DM duration, the more severe the
disc degeneration. Patients with poor control of DM seemed to show more severe disc
degeneration than patients with good control. All these demonstrated that DM was a
risk factor for LDDD, and such effect was time and control effect dependent.Frymoyer et al
reported that degenerative spondylolisthesis is more prevalent in diabetic
patients, while a community-based study by Vogt et al
did not find any correlation between a history of DM and the prevalence of
L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. In previous studies, one reported that the DM
patients had a poorer outcome following lumbar discectomy than controls, and the
rates of reoperation and prolonged hospitalization were also significantly higher in
DM patients.
Sakellaridis et al
and Machino et al
both reported that high preoperative HbA1c levels and long-term DM were risk
factors for poor cervical laminoplasty outcomes in patients with DM and cervical
spondylotic myelopathy. Now, we can understand the underlying mechanisms of it and
conclude that there is a positive relationship between DM and LDDD. Several studies
assumed that hyperglycemia enhances the formation of advanced glycation end products
(AGEs) in the nucleus pulposus, which leads to the progression of disc
degeneration.[16,17] Chen et al
found that DM accelerated the degeneration process of the disc by
microangiopathy. Autophagy of the nucleus pulposus and annulus fibrosis cells also
appears to play an important role in LDDD. Park et al
and Kong et al
demonstrated that high glucose-induced oxidative stress accelerates premature
stress-induced senescence in young rat annulus fibrosus cells in a dose- and
time-dependent manner rather than replicative senescence. However, no conclusion has
been made. Some studies have investigated methods to slow down the process of LDDD
caused by DM. Kong et al
suggested that strict blood glucose control is important in preventing or
delaying LDDD in older patients with DM.In our study, we also found that the average Pfirrmann scores of patients with good
control of DM and DM duration ≤10 years showed no difference with patients without
DM after the removal of the age effect. To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first study to investigate the relationship between DM and LDDD using the 5-level
Pfirrmann grading system with histopathological evidence. HbA1c was used to detect
diabetes that increases the accuracy of our study.Drawbacks of this study are the short follow-up and smaller data size. Another
limitation is the fact that degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and
vertebral osteoporotic fractures may simultaneously exist in the same patient.
Future prospective comparative studies with larger patient number and longer
follow-up are required for confirmation of our results.
Conclusion
There is a positive relationship between DM and LDDD. A longer the DM duration and
poor control of DM could aggravate disc degeneration.
Authors: M T Vogt; D Rubin; R S Valentin; L Palermo; W F Donaldson; M Nevitt; J A Cauley Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1998-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Svenja Illien-Junger; Fabrizio Grosjean; Damien M Laudier; Helen Vlassara; Gary E Striker; James C Iatridis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240