Literature DB >> 1536018

Cauda equina dysfunction. The significance of two-level pathology.

R W Porter1, D Ward.   

Abstract

The pathophysiology of neurogenic claudication is not well understood. It is generally believed that stenosis of the central vertebral canal is significant, but some believe that it is root canal stenosis or stenosis of the foramen that is important, not pathology in the central canal. There are, however, clinical anomalies incompatible with either view. In this article, 49 patients with neurogenic claudication were examined with myelography and computed tomography, recording the frequency of multilevel central canal stenosis and the presence of coexistent root canal stenosis. Of the 49 patients, 46 had either multilevel central canal stenosis or stenosis of both central and root canals. It was concluded that neurogenic claudication is generally associated with at least two levels of stenosis. A hypothesis of two-level venous compression, with venous pooling of one or several nerve roots, explains some of the pathophysiology of neurogenic claudication. This hypothesis is compatible with clinical and experimental observations, but it has yet to be confirmed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1536018

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Influence of age on the development of pathology.

Authors:  P S Sizer; O Matthijs; V Phelps
Journal:  Curr Rev Pain       Date:  2000

2.  Dynamic lumbar spinal stenosis : the usefulness of axial loaded MRI in preoperative evaluation.

Authors:  Kyung-Chul Choi; Jin-Sung Kim; Byungjoo Jung; Sang-Ho Lee
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-09-30

3.  Comparison between walking test and treadmill test for intermittent claudication associated with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Shinji Tanishima; Satoru Fukada; Hiroyuki Ishii; Toshiyuki Dokai; Yasuo Morio; Hideki Nagashima
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jon Lurie; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-01-04

5.  Image changes of paraspinal muscles and clinical correlations in patients with unilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Yan-Yu Chen; Jwo-Luen Pao; Chen-Kun Liaw; Wei-Li Hsu; Rong-Sen Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Stephane Genevay; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.098

7.  Predictors of residual symptoms in lower extremities after decompression surgery on lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Hara; Hiroyuki Oka; Takashi Yamazaki; Katsushi Takeshita; Motoaki Murakami; Kazuto Hoshi; Sei Terayama; Atsushi Seichi; Kozo Nakamura; Hiroshi Kawaguchi; Ko Matsudaira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview.

Authors:  Marek Szpalski; Robert Gunzburg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-09       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Comparison of the oswestry disability index and magnetic resonance imaging findings in lumbar canal stenosis: an observational study.

Authors:  Vijay G Goni; Aravind Hampannavar; Nirmal Raj Gopinathan; Paramjeet Singh; Pebam Sudesh; Rajesh Kumar Logithasan; Anurag Sharma; Shashidhar Bk; Radheshyam Sament
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-02-06

10.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR imaging.

Authors:  Mustafa Sirvanci; Mona Bhatia; Kursat Ali Ganiyusufoglu; Cihan Duran; Mehmet Tezer; Cagatay Ozturk; Mehmet Aydogan; Azmi Hamzaoglu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.