| Literature DB >> 34930340 |
William L Sheppard1, Kevin M McKay2, Alexander Upfill-Brown1, Gideon Blumstein1, Howard Y Park1, Akash Shah1, Adam A Sassoon1,2, Don Y Park3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have noted that patients with pre-existing lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) have lower functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Given that LSS manifests heterogeneously in location and severity, its influence on knee replacement merits a radiographically targeted analysis. We hypothesize that patients with more severe LSS will have diminished knee mobility before and after TKA.Entities:
Keywords: Outcomes; Spinal stenosis; Total knee arthroplasty
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34930340 PMCID: PMC8686657 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02864-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.677
Fig. 1Anterior–posterior (AP) diameter. A Sagittal T2-weighted MRI image at the intervertebral disc space between lumber level 1 and 2. B The corresponding T2-weighted axial MRI image from which the AP diameter measurement is shown. A line drawn from anterior-most aspect of the thecal sac to the most posterior aspect yields the measurement needed to assess stenosis in the AP plane
Fig. 2Morphological grade of stenosis [17, 20]. Axial T2-weighted MRI images shown. A Grade 0, normal thecal sac without cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) effacement. B Grade 1, mild CSF effacement without significant nerve root crowding/compression. C Grade 2, moderate CSF effacement with nerve root crowding/compression. D Grade 3, severe CSF effacement with indistinguishable individual nerve roots due to significant crowding/compression
Demographics and comorbidities
| Demographics and comorbidities | |
|---|---|
| Average age (years) | 71.3 |
| Male (%) | 24.5 |
| Average BMI (kg/m2) | 30.7 |
| Diabetes mellitus (%) | 22.3 |
| Hypertension (%) | 72.3 |
| Osteoporosis/osteopenia (%) | 21.2 |
| Current smoker (%) | 4.3 |
| Preoperative opioid use (%) | 38.3 |
Stenosis measured by AP diameter
| Level | Mean (cm) | SD (cm) | 95% CI (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1–2 | 1.43 | 0.25 | 1.39–1.48 |
| L2–3 | 1.29 | 0.31 | 1.23–1.35 |
| L3–4 | 1.12 | 0.32 | 1.04–1.17 |
| L4–5 | 1.12 | 0.36 | 1.05–1.19 |
| L5–S1 | 1.38 | 0.37 | 1.31–1.45 |
Morphological grade of stenosis
| Level | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1–2 | 77 | 20 | 6 | 0 |
| L2–3 | 64 | 26 | 12 | 1 |
| L3–4 | 51 | 20 | 28 | 4 |
| L4–5 | 59 | 21 | 19 | 4 |
| L5–S1 | 102 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Postoperative arc of motion vs AP diameter
| Intervertebral level | Regression coefficient (p value) |
|---|---|
| L1–2 | 5.21 (0.32) |
| L2–3 | 3.22 (0.45) |
| L3–4 | 7.67 (0.055) |
| L4–5 | 3.75 (0.27) |
| L5–S1 | 2.23 (0.47) |
| Worst level of stenosis | 9.13 (0.037)** |
**Statistically significant
Preoperative arc of motion vs AP diameter/morphological grade
| Intervertebral level | AP diameter regression coefficient (p value) | Morphological grade regression coefficient (p value) |
|---|---|---|
| L1–2 | 17.64 (< 0.001)** | 7.18 (< 0.001)** |
| L2–3 | 13.57 (< 0.001)** | 6.76 (< 0.001)** |
| L3–4 | 12.37 (0.001)** | 5.06 (< 0.001)** |
| L4–5 | 10.93 (< 0.001)** | 4.24 (< 0.001)** |
| L5–S1 | 4.47 (0.15) | 4.67 (0.70) |
| Worst level of stenosis | 15.76 (< 0.001)** | 5.20 (< 0.001)** |
**Statistically significant