| Literature DB >> 32312254 |
Jun Li1, Hao Li1, Ning Zhang1, Zhi-Wei Wang1, Teng-Fei Zhao1, Lin-Wei Chen1, Gang Chen1, Qi-Xin Chen2, Fang-Cai Li3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extreme lumbar spinal stenosis was thought to be a relative contraindication for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and was excluded in most studies. This is a retrospective study to analyze the radiographic and clinical outcome of LLIF for extreme lumbar spinal stenosis of Schizas grade D.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical outcomes; LLIF ;lumbar ;spinal stenosis ;indirect decompression; Radiographical outcomes
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32312254 PMCID: PMC7171740 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03282-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Extreme lumbar stenosis: Schizas stenosis grade D
Fig. 2Measurement of radiographic parameters. ADH: anterior disc height. PDH: posterior disc height. DA: disc angle. IFH: intervertebral foramen height. CD: midsagittal canal diameter. CCA: axial central canal area
Demographic characteristics of patients with Schizas’s classification D
| Category | Values |
|---|---|
| Average age | 67.94 ± 4.21 |
| Gender(M:F) | 11:7 |
| BMI in kg/m2 (mean) | 25.27 ± 2.45 |
| Average surgical levels | 1.78 ± 0.81 |
| Disc with Schizas grade D | |
| L3/4 | 2 |
| L4/5 | 16 |
| VAS score for back | 6.06 ± 1.35 |
| VAS score for leg | 5.39 ± 1.24 |
| ODI score (%) | 43.33 ± 7.32 |
| Follow-up time (month) | 19.61 ± 6.32 |
Overall radiographic evaluation results
| Results( | preoperative | postoperative | Change | Change rate % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT measurements | |||||
| Anterior disk height | 10.96 ± 3.23 | 13.52 ± 2.54 | 2.57 ± 2.10 | 31.53 ± 38.18 | <0.001 |
| Posterior disk height | 5.54 ± 2.21 | 7.74 ± 2.31 | 2.20 ± 1.53 | 56.29 ± 63.17 | <0.001 |
| Disc angle | 5.96 ± 3.37 | 7.01 ± 3.69 | 1.06 ± 3.84 | – | 0.005 |
| Left foraminal height | 17.74 ± 2.35 | 19.63 ± 2.56 | 1.90 ± 1.76 | 11.22 ± 10.55 | <0.001 |
| Right foraminal height | 17.75 ± 2.33 | 19.89 ± 2.53 | 2.14 ± 2.02 | 12.89 ± 13.07 | <0.001 |
| MRI measurements | |||||
| Midsagittal canal diameter | 7.92 ± 2.86 | 10.02 ± 2.77 | 2.11 ± 1.63 | 38.46 ± 66.27 | <0.001 |
| axial central canal area | 96.67 ± 50.12 | 117.60 ± 52.92 | 21.25 ± 18.30 | 28.03 ± 26.63 | <0.001 |
This P value is the result of comparison between before and after surgery
Summary of MRI evaluation
| Parameter | Grade | preoperative | postoperative | Change value | Change rate % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midsagittal canal diameter | A | 10.96 ± 2.69 | 12.43 ± 2.45 | 1.48 ± 1.16 | 15.85 ± 17.58 | 0.011 |
| B | 9.27 ± 2.35 | 11.30 ± 2.49 | 2.03 ± 1.69 | 24.42 ± 21.49 | 0.249 | |
| C | 7.37 ± 2.19 | 9.58 ± 2.29 | 2.18 ± 1.74 | 41.37 ± 76.16 | 0.362 | |
| D | 4.39 ± 2.52 | 6.89 ± 2.40 | 2.50 ± 1.25 | 79.69 ± 86.23 | – | |
| Axial central canal area | A | 161.43 ± 56.25 | 185.00 ± 51.93 | 23.57 ± 15.14 | 17.12 ± 13.24 | 0.073 |
| B | 128.11 ± 47.55 | 148.68 ± 49.18 | 20.57 ± 15.68 | 18.58 ± 15.51 | 0.222 | |
| C | 81.96 ± 25.90 | 103.40 ± 31.74 | 21.44 ± 20.07 | 29.64 ± 27.73 | 0.104 | |
| D | 32.61 ± 11.10 | 49.72 ± 17.47 | 16.11 ± 10.70 | 52.91 ± 34.41 | – |
This P value is the result of comparison of change value with grade D
Fig. 3Changes of the spinal canal on MRI according to Schizas’ classification. The average change in the midsagittal midsagittal canal diameter (CD) of grade D was significantly greater than that of grade A, but showed no significant difference compared to grades B or C. The average change in the axial central canal area (CCA) of grade D was not significantly different from that in the other grades. However, the average change rate of midsagittal CD and axial CCA increased from grade A to grade D
Summary of CT evaluation
| Parameter | Grade | preoperative | postoperative | Change value | Change rate % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anterior disk height | A | 10.52 ± 3.06 | 13.39 ± 2.66 | 2.87 ± 2.24 | 33.27 ± 30.27 | 0.431 |
| B | 10.51 ± 3.24 | 13.35 ± 2.35 | 2.84 ± 2.15 | 37.47 ± 45.17 | 0.407 | |
| C | 10.80 ± 3.31 | 13.26 ± 2.59 | 2.47 ± 2.07 | 31.57 ± 39.95 | 0.803 | |
| D | 12.89 ± 2.87 | 15.22 ± 2.34 | 2.33 ± 2.06 | 21.39 ± 20.73 | – | |
| Posterior disk height | A | 4.91 ± 1.90 | 7.57 ± 2.02 | 2.65 ± 1.64 | 71.46 ± 69.84 | 0.979 |
| B | 5.62 ± 2.53 | 8.32 ± 2.40 | 2.70 ± 1.47 | 69.14 ± 71.19 | 0.940 | |
| C | 5.56 ± 2.22 | 7.40 ± 2.33 | 1.83 ± 1.43 | 47.03 ± 57.90 | 0.070 | |
| D | 6.17 ± 1.91 | 8.83 ± 1.95 | 2.67 ± 1.75 | 55.97 ± 57.35 | – | |
| Disc angle | A | 5.50 ± 3.34 | 5.71 ± 2.61 | 1.21 ± 3.68 | – | 0.852 |
| B | 5.04 ± 3.41 | 5.90 ± 3.78 | 0.85 ± 3.97 | – | 0.906 | |
| C | 6.09 ± 3.32 | 7.34 ± 3.80 | 1.26 ± 3.91 | – | 0.790 | |
| D | 6.74 ± 3.63 | 7.73 ± 3.89 | 0.99 ± 3.89 | – | – | |
| Left foraminal height | A | 17.43 ± 2.27 | 19.74 ± 2.49 | 2.30 ± 2.12 | 14.13 ± 13.97 | 0.751 |
| B | 17.86 ± 2.49 | 20.36 ± 2.96 | 2.50 ± 1.62 | 14.25 ± 9.23 | 0.433 | |
| C | 17.71 ± 2.43 | 19.24 ± 2.53 | 1.53 ± 1.67 | 9.19 ± 9.93 | 0.206 | |
| D | 18.17 ± 1.82 | 20.28 ± 1.60 | 2.11 ± 1.75 | 12.20 ± 10.28 | – | |
| Right foraminal height | A | 16.65 ± 2.27 | 19.70 ± 2.20 | 3.04 ± 1.87 | 19.28 ± 12.94 | 0.098 |
| B | 17.68 ± 2.14 | 20.51 ± 2.66 | 2.84 ± 1.83 | 16.68 ± 13.08 | 0.146 | |
| C | 17.96 ± 2.36 | 19.62 ± 2.58 | 1.66 ± 2.05 | 9.95 ± 12.78 | 0.414 | |
| D | 18.39 ± 2.09 | 20.44 ± 2.15 | 2.05 ± 1.83 | 11.83 ± 10.82 | – |
This P value is the result of comparison of change value with grade D
Fig. 4A 66-year-old woman with Schizas grade D preoperatively at L4/5 (a, b). Her axial central canal area and midsagittal canal diameter partially improved after CLIF surgery (c, d) and significantly improved after second-stage laminectomy (e, f). Neurological decompression was maintained 15 months after surgery (g, h)
Fig. 5A 70-year-old woman with Schizas grade D and severe ligamentum flavum hypertrophy preoperatively at L4/5 (a, b). Her axial central canal area and midsagittal canal diameter achieved small improvements after CLIF surgery with the presence of ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (c, d). Significant improvement was achieved after second-stage laminectomy (e, f)
Fig. 6A 66-year-old woman suffering from contralateral iliopsoas hematoma (arrow)