Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Prospective Clinicoradiologic Analysis

Abstract

Background Although spinal canal narrowing is thought to be the defining feature for the clinical diagnosis of lumbar canal stenosis, the degree of spinal canal stenosis necessary to elicit neurologic symptoms is not clear. Several studies have been performed to detect an association between a narrow spinal canal and clinical symptoms. Through our prospective study, we compared the radiologic criteria with the clinical criteria using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and assessed how they correlate.

Materials and Methods We used the qualitative grading (morphological classification system on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) system, dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA), and sedimentation sign on MRI images and compared them with the Self-Paced Walking Ability (Self-Paced Walking Test) and ODI of the patients in the study. The systems were applied to 85 patients divided into three groups: group A: 43 patients with neurogenic claudication and able to walk < 30 minutes; group B: 11 patients with neurogenic claudication and able to walk > 30 minutes; and group C: 31 patients with simple back pain and no signs of neurologic claudication.

Results The mean ODI was 21.19 in group C, 46.50 in group B, and 61.95 in group A. The difference was statistically significant. The mean DSCA was 164.42 mm² in group C, 49.94 mm² in group B, and 35.07 mm² in group A. The difference was statistically significant. The sedimentation sign was negative in 96.8% patients in group C, 54.5% patients in group B, and 32.6% patients in group A. The difference was statistically significant. Group C had 9.3% patients in morphology grade A3, 51.6% in grade A2, and 38.7% patients in grade A1. Group B had 63.6% patients in grade C, 18.2% patients in grade B, 9.1% in grade A4, and 9.1% in grade A3. Group A had 18.6% patients in grade D, 39.5% in grade C, 27.9% in grade B, 11.6% in grade A4, and 2.3% in grade A3. The mean DSCA of group C was significantly different from group A and group B, but the difference of the mean DSCA between group A and group B was not statistically significant. The relationship of ODI to DSCA, ODI to sedimentation sign, and ODI to morphological grading for group C and group A was not statistically significant. The relationship of morphological grading to DSCA was statistically significant for all three groups.

Conclusion DSCA, morphological grading, and sedimentation sign are good to excellent radiologic indicators differentiating patients with simple back pain from those with lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinically, ODI is an excellent indicator of the severity of stenosis. But ODI statistically has no significant correlation to any of these radiologic parameters.

Keywords

lumbar - canal - stenosis - clinicoradiologic - analysis

Publication History

Received: 14 December 2018

Accepted: 23 May 2019

Article published online:
27 February 2020

• References

• 1 Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH. , et al. Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. Spine J 2009; 9 (07) 545-550
• 2 Verbiest H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1954; 36-B [phone]
• 3 Ciricillo SF, Weinstein PR. Lumbar spinal stenosis. West J Med 1993; 158 (02) 171-177
• 4 Barz T, Melloh M, Staub LP. , et al. Nerve root sedimentation sign: evaluation of a new radiological sign in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2010; 35 (08) 892-897
• 5 Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A. , et al. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine 2010; 35 (21) 1919-1924
• 6 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000; 25 (22) 2940-2952 ; discussion 2952
• 7 Tomkins CC, Battié MC, Rogers T, Jiang H, Petersen S. A criterion measure of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis and its comparison with a treadmill protocol. Spine 2009; 34 (22) 2444-2449
• 8 Tomkins-Lane CC, Battié MC. Validity and reproducibility of self-report measures of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2010; 35 (23) 2097-2102
• 9 Dupuis PR, Yong-Hing K, Cassidy JD, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability. Spine 1985; 10 (03) 262-276
• 10 Vaccaro AR, Ball ST. Indications for instrumentation in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. Orthopedics 2000; 23 (03) 260-271 ; quiz 272–273
• 11 Schönström N, Hansson T. Pressure changes following constriction of the cauda equina. An experimental study in situ. Spine 1988; 13 (04) 385-388
• 12 Olmarker K. Spinal nerve root compression. Nutrition and function of the porcine cauda equina compressed in vivo. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1991; 242: 1-27
• 13 Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleås F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 1995; 20 (10) 1178-1186
• 14 Lohman CM, Tallroth K, Kettunen JA, Lindgren K-A. Comparison of radiologic signs and clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis. Spine 2006; 31 (16) 1834-1840
• 15 Tomkins-Lane CC, Quint DJ, Gabriel S, Melloh M, Haig AJ. Nerve root sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. Spine 2013; 38 (24) E1554-E1560
• 16 Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M. Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 1999; 24 (01) 62-66
• 17 Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21 (07) 796-803
• 18 Mohammadi HR, Azimi P, Benzel EC, Shahzadi S, Azhari S. The role of stenosis ratio as a predictor of surgical satisfaction in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. J Neurosurg Sci 2016; 60 (03) 345-349
• 19 Azimi P, Mohammadi HR, Benzel EC, Shahzadi S, Azhari S. Lumbar spinal canal stenosis classification criteria: a new tool. Asian Spine J 2015; 9 (03) 399-406