Literature DB >> 19398386

Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study.

Leonid Kalichman1, Robert Cole, David H Kim, Ling Li, Pradeep Suri, Ali Guermazi, David J Hunter.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in the general population and association with low back pain (LBP) remain unclear.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of congenital and acquired LSS observed on computed tomography in a community-based sample; and to evaluate the association between LSS and LBP. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Cross-sectional observational study. This study was an ancillary project to the Framingham Heart Study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 3,529 participants underwent multidetector computed tomography; 191 were enrolled in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report measures: LBP in the preceding 12 months was evaluated using a self-report questionnaire. Physiologic measures: LSS (congenital and acquired) was characterized using two cut-points: 12mm for relative LSS and 10mm for absolute LSS.
METHODS: Using multiple logistic regression, we examined the association between LSS and LBP, adjusting for sex, age, and body mass index.
RESULTS: In the congenital group, relative LSS was found in 4.7% and absolute LSS in 2.6% of patients. Acquired LSS was found in 22.5% and in 7.3%, respectively. Acquired LSS showed increasing prevalence with age less than 40 years, the prevalence of relative and absolute LSS was 20.0% and 4.0%, respectively, and in those 60 to 69 years the prevalence was 47.2% and 19.4%, respectively. The presence of absolute LSS was associated with LBP with an odds ratio of 3.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-9.53).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of congenital and acquired LSS in a community-based sample was characterized. The prevalence of acquired stenosis increased with age. LSS is associated with a threefold higher risk of experiencing LBP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19398386      PMCID: PMC3775665          DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  29 in total

1.  Reliability in grading the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  R Drew; M Bhandari; A V Kulkarni; D Louw; K Reddy; B Dunlop
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2000-06

2.  Evidence for lower variability of coronary artery calcium mineral mass measurements by multi-detector computed tomography in a community-based cohort--consequences for progression studies.

Authors:  Udo Hoffmann; Uwe Siebert; Arabella Bull-Stewart; Stephan Achenbach; Maros Ferencik; Fabian Moselewski; Thomas J Brady; Joseph M Massaro; Christopher J O'Donnell
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation.

Authors:  S D Boden; D O Davis; T S Dina; N J Patronas; S W Wiesel
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  The Longitudinal Assessment of Imaging and Disability of the Back (LAIDBack) Study: baseline data.

Authors:  J J Jarvik; W Hollingworth; P Heagerty; D R Haynor; R A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The Third Generation Cohort of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study: design, recruitment, and initial examination.

Authors:  Greta Lee Splansky; Diane Corey; Qiong Yang; Larry D Atwood; L Adrienne Cupples; Emelia J Benjamin; Ralph B D'Agostino; Caroline S Fox; Martin G Larson; Joanne M Murabito; Christopher J O'Donnell; Ramachandran S Vasan; Philip A Wolf; Daniel Levy
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-03-19       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  N S Schonstrom; N F Bolender; D M Spengler
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Quantitative assessment of the lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography.

Authors:  C G Ullrich; E F Binet; M G Sanecki; S A Kieffer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults: a metaanalysis of the accuracy of CT, MR, and myelography.

Authors:  D L Kent; D R Haynor; E B Larson; R A Deyo
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Spinal stenosis surgery in Sweden 1987-1999.

Authors:  K-A Jansson; P Blomqvist; F Granath; G Németh
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-24       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging.

Authors:  Jeffrey G Jarvik; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  160 in total

1.  Improving the pharmacologic management of pain in older adults: identifying the research gaps and methods to address them.

Authors:  M Cary Reid; David A Bennett; Wen G Chen; Basil A Eldadah; John T Farrar; Bruce Ferrell; Rollin M Gallagher; Joseph T Hanlon; Keela Herr; Susan D Horn; Charles E Inturrisi; Salma Lemtouni; Yu Woody Lin; Kaleb Michaud; R Sean Morrison; Tuhina Neogi; Linda L Porter; Daniel H Solomon; Michael Von Korff; Karen Weiss; James Witter; Kevin L Zacharoff
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.750

2.  Diagnosis of a 64-year-old patient presenting with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based case report.

Authors:  Peter C Emary
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2015-03

3.  Prevalence of anatomic impediments to interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injection.

Authors:  Farah Hameed; David J Hunter; James Rainville; Ling Li; Pradeep Suri
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.966

4.  The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Authors:  Belinda L Udeh; Shrif Costandi; Jarrod E Dalton; Raktim Ghosh; Hani Yousef; Nagy Mekhail
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.183

5.  Analysis of radiological parameters associated with decreased fractional anisotropy values on diffusion tensor imaging in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Xiandi Wang; Hongli Wang; Chi Sun; Shuyi Zhou; Tao Meng; Feizhou Lv; Xiaosheng Ma; Xinlei Xia; Jianyuan Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Ligamental compartments and their relation to the passing spinal nerves are detectable with MRI inside the lumbar neural foramina.

Authors:  Dina Wiersbicki; Anna Völker; Christoph-Eckhard Heyde; Hanno Steinke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The reliability of differentiating neurogenic claudication from vascular claudication based on symptomatic presentation.

Authors:  Mélissa Nadeau; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; Kevin R Gurr; Stewart I Bailey; David C Taylor; Ruby Grewal; D Kirk Lawlor; Chris S Bailey
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 8.  Spinal Cord Stimulation, MILD Procedure, and Regenerative Medicine, Novel Interventional Nonopioid Therapies in Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Ken P Ehrhardt; Susan M Mothersele; Andrew J Brunk; Jeremy B Green; Mark R Jones; Craig B Billeaud; Alan David Kaye
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2018-03-19

9.  Reliability of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of neurogenic versus vascular claudication.

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Paul Park; Peter K Henke; Karen S J Yamakawa; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Juan Valdivia; Sierra Loar
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Depressive symptoms during rehabilitation period predict poor outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: a two-year perspective.

Authors:  Sanna Sinikallio; Soili M Lehto; Timo Aalto; Olavi Airaksinen; Heikki Kröger; Heimo Viinamäki
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.