Radiologic Evaluation Of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: The Integration Of Sagittal And Axial Views In Decision Making For Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures.
low back pain
lumbar spinal stenosis
neurogenic claudication
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Mar 2019
19 Mar 2019
Historique:
entrez:
4
6
2019
pubmed:
4
6
2019
medline:
4
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radiologic findings in combination with clinical symptoms are critical in the diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) as well as the need for surgical treatment. Dynamic radiographs, computerized tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) each provide different but interrelated pieces of information in the patient with lumbar spinal stenosis. Making a treatment decision based only on one of the radiographic studies may negatively affect the treatment outcome. Minimal procedures are predicated on identifying and performing surgery on a limited segment of the lumbar spinal canal affected by the stenosis compared to what occurs during open surgery where the judgment of the spine surgeon often expanded the decompression area based on real-time intra-operative findings correlated with radiologic findings of stenosis. As newer, less invasive procedures are gaining acceptance for surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with symptomatic claudication, radiologic studies become more critical in selecting the correct procedure since there may be no or minimal surgical visual confirmation of the pathology. This article will review how the finding of spinal deformity and motion, canal dimensions, viewed in multiple planes and the presence of facet fluid impact treatment decisions. Differences in these abnormal radiologic findings can affect the selection of surgical procedures ranging from open decompression with pedicle fixation, decompression with interlaminar stabilization, minimally invasive lumbar decompression, and percutaneous interspinous implants providing distraction without decompression. With the development of less invasive procedures, lumbar spinal stenosis is being evaluated and treated not only by spine surgeons but also by interventional pain and neuroradiology physicians that may not be totally familiar with the complexity of the pathology and neuro-radiology of LSS. Each radiologic study provides different information. The goal of this report is to provide a framework for the use of studies such as plain X-rays, dynamic films, MRI, and CT scans as well as the importance of different views, and how to use them in evaluating the abnormal radiologic anatomy seen with LSS and in selecting the most appropriate procedure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31157130
doi: 10.7759/cureus.4268
pmc: PMC6529051
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e4268Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Radiographics. 1999 Jul-Aug;19(4):1057-67
pubmed: 10464808
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 1;30(7):744-9
pubmed: 15803075
Spine J. 2009 Jul;9(7):545-50
pubmed: 19398386
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Oct 1;35(21):1919-24
pubmed: 20671589
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Jan;14(1):46-50
pubmed: 21142460
Spine J. 2011 Sep;11(9):816-23
pubmed: 21145292
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Nov 1;36(23):1969-76
pubmed: 21289573
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Jul 28;12:175
pubmed: 21798008
Radiology. 2012 Jul;264(1):174-9
pubmed: 22550311
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Apr;18(4):347-55
pubmed: 23373562
Spine J. 2013 Jun;13(6):706-12
pubmed: 23541448
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Nov 15;39(24):E1448-65
pubmed: 23970106
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Nov;201(5):W735-46
pubmed: 24147503
Spine J. 2015 Sep 1;15(9):1956-62
pubmed: 25130777
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Dec;28(10):394-7
pubmed: 25353204
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):W461-9
pubmed: 25794096
Asian Spine J. 2015 Oct;9(5):818-28
pubmed: 26435805
Cureus. 2017 Mar 10;9(3):e1090
pubmed: 28413736
Int J Spine Surg. 2017 Dec 05;11:34
pubmed: 29372138
Pain Pract. 2019 Mar;19(3):250-274
pubmed: 30369003