Literature DB >> 18165750

The effect of body position and axial load on spinal canal morphology: an MRI study of central spinal stenosis.

Rasmus Madsen1, Tue Secher Jensen, Malcolm Pope, Joan Solgaard Sørensen, Tom Bendix.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A method comparison study.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of body position and axial load of the lumbar spine on disc height, lumbar lordosis, and dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: The effects of flexion and extension on spinal canal diameters and DCSA are well documented. However, the effects of axial loading, achieved by upright standing or by a compression device, are still unclear.
METHODS: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were examined in 2 separate studies, including 16 and 20 patients, respectively. In section 1, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were performed during upright standing and supine positions with and without axial load. In section 2, MRI scans were performed exclusively in supine positions, one with flexion of the lumbar spine (psoas-relaxed position), an extended position (legs straight), and an extended position with applied axial loading. Disc height, lumbar lordosis, and DCSA were measured and the different positions were compared.
RESULTS: In section 1, the only significant difference between positions was a reduced lumbar lordosis during standing when compared with lying (P = 0.04), most probably a consequence of precautions taken to secure immobility during the vertical scans. This seemingly makes our standing posture less valuable as a standard of reference. In section 2, DCSA was reduced at all 5 lumbar levels after extension, and further reduced at 2 levels after adding compression (P < 0.05). Significant reductions of disc height were found at 3 motion segments and of DCSA at 11 segments after compression, but these changes were never seen in the same motion segment.
CONCLUSION: Horizontal MRI with the patient supine and the legs straightened was comparable to vertical MRI whether axial compression was added or not. Extensionwas the dominant cause rather than compression in reducing DCSA. Axial load was not considered to have a clinically relevant effect on spinal canal diameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18165750     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e395f

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


  33 in total

1.  Dynamic changes in the dural sac cross-sectional area on axial loaded MR imaging: is there a difference between degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis?

Authors:  H Ozawa; H Kanno; Y Koizumi; N Morozumi; T Aizawa; T Kusakabe; Y Ishii; E Itoi
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  The influence of knee bolster on lumbar spinal stenosis parameters on MR images.

Authors:  Azaria Simonovich; Anna Nagar Osherov; Lina Linov; Leonid Kalichman
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  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

4.  Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Klaus Schlüter-Brust; Thomas Kaulhausen; Marc Röllinghoff; Britta Joswig; Hartmut Stützer; Peer Eysel; Patrick Simons; Johannes Kuchta
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Changes in dural sac caliber with standing MRI improve correlation with symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Yvonne Yan On Lau; Ryan Ka Lok Lee; James Francis Griffith; Carol Lai Yee Chan; Sheung Wai Law; Kin On Kwok
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and its imposters: three case studies.

Authors:  Carlo Ammendolia
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2014-09

Review 7.  What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review.

Authors:  Carlo Ammendolia; Kent Stuber; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Michael Schneider; Y Raja Rampersaud; Andrea D Furlan; Carol A Kennedy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Functional and quantitative magnetic resonance myelography of symptomatic stenoses of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Knut Eberhardt; Oliver Ganslandt; Andreas Stadlbauer
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with electrodiagnostic findings in the evaluation of clinical radiculopathy: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Zahra Reza Soltani; Simin Sajadi; Behrooz Tavana
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Assessment of nerve involvement in the lumbar spine: agreement between magnetic resonance imaging, physical examination and pain drawing findings.

Authors:  Bo C Bertilson; Eva Brosjö; Hans Billing; Lars-Erik Strender
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-09-10       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.