Literature DB >> 10562990

Computed tomography findings 4 years after surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. No correlation with clinical outcome.

A Herno1, O Airaksinen, T Saari, M Pitkänen, H Manninen, O Suomalainen.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective, cross-sectional study of the correlation between postoperative computed tomography findings and patients' clinical outcomes approximately 4 years after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical and radiologic characteristics and their relation to each other. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The goal of surgical management for lumbar spinal stenosis is to decompress the stenotic area determined in radiologic examinations to relieve pressure on the neurovascular structures. However, the success of this decompression very rarely has been confirmed by postoperative radiologic imaging or compared with clinical outcome.
METHODS: Postoperative computed tomography was performed on 191 patients. The findings were classified as "no stenosis," "central stenosis," "lateral stenosis," or "central-lateral stenosis." Postoperative instability of the lumbar spine was investigated by functional radiography. Clinical status was assessed by clinical examination. Subjective disability was assessing using the Oswestry questionnaire, and severity of pain using the visual analog scale. Walking capacity was evaluated by the tread-mill test.
RESULTS: Radiologic studies revealed postoperative stenosis in 123 patients (64%). Small differences between the computed tomography groups were shown for the Oswestry score, but not for walking distance. Clinical signs, severity of pain, and radiologic instability were very similar for all computed tomography groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative radiologic stenosis was very common in patients operated on for lumbar spinal stenosis, but this did not correlate with clinical outcome. The clinician must be cautious when reconciling clinical symptoms and signs with postoperative computed tomography findings in patients operated on for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10562990     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199911010-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  12 in total

1.  [Longterm results of the interspinous spacer X-STOP].

Authors:  A Reinhardt; S Hufnagel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Minimally invasive laminectomy in spondylolisthetic lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Ilias N Caralopoulos; Cuong J Bui
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

3.  A novel method for the quantitative evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Fengyu Zheng; James C Farmer; Harvinder S Sandhu; Patrick F O'Leary
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2006-09

4.  Quantification of walking ability in subjects with neurogenic claudication from lumbar spinal stenosis--a comparative study.

Authors:  James Rainville; Lisa A Childs; Enrique B Peña; Pradeep Suri; Janet C Limke; Cristin Jouve; David J Hunter
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography-myelography for quantitative evaluation of lumbar intracanalar cross-section.

Authors:  Hiroyasu Ogura; Kei Miyamoto; Shoji Fukuta; Toshitaka Naganawa; Katsuji Shimizu
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.759

6.  Walking assessment in people with lumbar spinal stenosis: capacity, performance, and self-report measures.

Authors:  Justin Conway; Christy C Tomkins; Andrew J Haig
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Magnetic resonance imaging predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Banu Alicioglu; Baris Yilmaz; Nail Bulakbasi; Cem Copuroglu; Erol Yalniz; Bilal Aykac; Devrim Ulas Urut
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.374

8.  A randomised controlled trial of post-operative rehabilitation after surgical decompression of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Raymond Denzler; Jiri Dvorak; Markus Müntener; Dieter Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Gait analysis does not correlate with clinical and MR imaging parameters in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Felix Zeifang; Marcus Schiltenwolf; Rainer Abel; Babak Moradi
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-06-20       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  DEGENERATIVE STENOSIS OF THE LUMBAR SPINE.

Authors:  Sérgio Zylbersztejn; Leandro de Freitas Spinelli; Nilson Rodinei Rodrigues; Pablo Mariotti Werlang; Yorito Kisaki; Aldemar Roberto Mieres Rios; Cesar Dall Bello
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2015-12-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.