Literature DB >> 18277859

Surgical results in hidden lumbar spinal stenosis detected by axial loaded computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: an outcome study.

Jan Willén1, Per J Wessberg, Barbro Danielsson.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An outcome study of patients with neurogenic claudication and/or sciatica with hidden stenosis, detected only by axial loading of the lumbar spine (ACE) but not at the traditional unloaded examination (psoas relaxed position) during computed tomography (CT) myelography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), followed up after surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical effect of decompression with or without fusion in patients with hidden stenosis in the lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A number of patients with neurogenic claudicatio with or without sciatica do not have corresponding imaging abnormalities. Axial loaded CT and MRI have disclosed hidden stenosis in certain cases. The surgical effect in patients with hidden stenosis has never been described. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Axial loading of the lumbar spine during CT and MRI was performed in 250 patients with neurogenic claudication and sciatica. All fulfilled the inclusion criteria for ACE, i.e., suspected but not verified spinal stenosis in 1 to 3 levels. In 125 patients (50%), a significant narrowing of the spinal canal occurred. Out of these 125 patients, 101 had a clear stenosis besides the stenosis only detected at ACE. In 24 patients, a hidden stenosis was detected in 1 to 3 levels only at the ACE. These patients were observed for 1 to 6 years after decompression with or without fusion regarding subjective improvement of leg and back pains, walking capacity, satisfaction, and health related quality of life.
RESULTS: At follow-up, 76% of the patients had leg pain less than 25/100 on a VAS scale and 62% had back pain less than 25/100. Ninety-six percent were improved or much improved regarding leg and back pains The ability to walk increased significantly after surgery. Walking capacity to more than 500 m increased from 4% to 87%. Twenty-two patients were subjectively satisfied with the surgical results. The ODI score, the SF-36 and the EQ-5D score corresponded well to the above mentioned improvements at follow-up.
CONCLUSION: According to this study, the results of surgery in hidden lumbar stenosis only detected by axial compression in extension during CT or MRI, are convincing and comparable with the results of surgical treatment for stenoses diagnosed by unloaded examinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18277859     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318163f9ab

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


  10 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.  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

4.  Predictors of walking performance and walking capacity in people with lumbar spinal stenosis, low back pain, and asymptomatic controls.

Authors:  Christy C Tomkins-Lane; Sara Christensen Holz; Karen S Yamakawa; Vaishali V Phalke; Doug J Quint; Jennifer Miner; Andrew J Haig
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 3.966

5.  Can recumbent magnetic resonance imaging replace myelography or computed tomography myelography for detecting lumbar spinal stenosis?

Authors:  Kanji Sasaki; Kazuhiro Hasegawa; Haruka Shimoda; Ishii Keiji; Takao Homma
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-03-30

6.  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

Review 7.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Increased Facet Fluid Predicts Dynamic Changes in the Dural Sac Size on Axial-Loaded MRI in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis.

Authors:  H Kanno; H Ozawa; Y Koizumi; N Morozumi; T Aizawa; E Itoi
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Axial loading during MRI reveals insufficient effect of percutaneous interspinous implants (Aperius™ PerCLID™) on spinal canal area.

Authors:  Hrafnhildur Hjaltadottir; Hanna Hebelka; Caroline Molinder; Helena Brisby; Adad Baranto
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Weight-Bearing Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Diagnostic Tool That Generates Biomechanical Changes in Spine Anatomy.

Authors:  Brian Fiani; Daniel W Griepp; Jason Lee; Cyrus Davati; Christina M Moawad; Athanasios Kondilis
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-12-14
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.