Defining clinically relevant values for developmental spinal stenosis: A large-scale magnetic resonance imaging study

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 13, 2014, Pages 1067-1076

  Cheung, Jason Pui Yin ^a   Samartzis, Dino ^a   Shigematsu, Hideki ^b   Cheung, Kenneth Man Chee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b NARA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

axial; bony; canal; critical; developmental; diameter; magnetic resonance imaging; sagittal; spinal; stenosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CHILD; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS; VERY ELDERLY; ADOLESCENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; SACRUM; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STANDARDS; VERTEBRA; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SACRUM; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL STENOSIS; THORACIC VERTEBRAE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84902292180     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000335     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, et al. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 1978; 3 : 319-28.
2. Verbiest H. Further experiences on the pathological infl uence of a developmental narrowness of the bony lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1955; 37-B : 576-83.
3. Verbiest H. Fallacies of the present defi nition, nomenclature, and classifi cation of the stenoses of the lumbar vertebral canal. Spine 1976; 1 : 217-25.
4. Hyun SJ, Park BG, Rhim SC, et al. A haplotype at the COL9A2 gene locus contributes to the genetic risk for lumbar spinal stenosis in the Korean population. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36 : 1273-8.
5. Noponen-Hietala N, Kyllonen E, Mannikko M, et al. Sequence variations in the collagen IX and XI genes are associated with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62 : 1208-14.
6. Sebastian A, Matsushita T, Kawanami A, et al. Genetic inactivation of ERK1 and ERK2 in chondrocytes promotes bone growth and enlarges the spinal canal. J Orthop Res 2011; 29 : 375-9.
7. Aladin DM, Cheung KM, Chan D, et al. Expression of the Trp2 allele of COL9A2 is associated with alterations in the mechanical properties of human intervertebral discs. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32 : 2820-6.
8. Jim JJ, Noponen-Hietala N, Cheung KM, et al. The TRP2 allele of COL9A2 is an age-dependent risk factor for the development and severity of intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30 : 2735-42.
9. Bolender NF, Schonstrom NS, Spengler DM. Role of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of central spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67 : 240-6.
10. Chatha DS, Schweitzer ME. MRI criteria of developmental lumbar spinal stenosis revisited. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2011; 69 : 303-7.
11. Cheung KM, Ruan D, Chan FL, et al. Computed tomographic osteometry of Asian lumbar pedicles. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 1994; 19 : 1495-8.
12. Fang D, Cheung KM, Ruan D, et al. Computed tomographic osteometry of the Asian lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 1994; 7 : 307-16.
13. Hamanishi C, Matukura N, Fujita M, et al. Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord 1994; 7 : 388-93.
14. Inui Y, Doita M, Ouchi K, et al. Clinical and radiologic features of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation with neuropathic bladder. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29 : 869-73.
15. Lee HM, Kim NH, Kim HJ, et al. Morphometric study of the lumbar spinal canal in the Korean population. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20 : 1679-84.
16. Singh K, Samartzis D, Vaccaro AR, et al. Congenital lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched, cohort radiographic analysis. Spine J 2005; 5 : 615-22.
17. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72 : 403-8.
18. Lee SU, Lee JI, Butts K, et al. Changes in posterior lumbar disk contour abnormality with fl exion-extension movement in subjects with low back pain and degenerative disk disease. PM R 2009; 1 : 541-6.
19. Cheung KM, Samartzis D, Karppinen J, et al. Are "patterns" of lumbar disc degeneration associated with low back pain?: new insights based on skipped level disc pathology. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37 : E430-8.
20. Mok FP, Samartzis D, Karppinen J, et al. ISSLS prize winner: prevalence, determinants, and association of Schmorl nodes of the lumbar spine with disc degeneration: a population-based study of 2449 individuals. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35 : 1944-52.
21. Samartzis D, Karppinen J, Chan D, et al. The association of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging with body mass index in overweight and obese adults: a populationbased study. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64 : 1488-96.
22. Samartzis D, Karppinen J, Mok F, et al. A population-based study of juvenile disc degeneration and its association with overweight and obesity, low back pain, and diminished functional status. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 : 662-70.
23. Cheung JP, Shigematsu H, Cheung KM. Verifi cation of measurements of lumbar spinal dimensions in T1 and T2-weighted MRI sequences. Spine J 2013;pii: S1529-9430:01502-7. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.054.
24. Eisenstein S. Measurements of the lumbar spinal canal in 2 racial groups. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; 115 : 42-6.
25. Epstein BS, Epstein JA, Jones MD. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Radiol Clin North Am 1977; 15 : 227-39.
26. Modic MT, Masaryk T, Boumphrey F, et al. Lumbar herniated disk disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT, and myelography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986; 147 : 757-65.
27. Modic MT, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 1991; 22 : 283-301.
28. Schonstrom NS, Bolender NF, Spengler DM. The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 1985; 10 : 806-11.
29. Speciale AC, Pietrobon R, Urban CW, et al. Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area. Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27 : 1082-6.
30. Vangeneugden T, Laenen A, Geys H, et al. Applying concepts of generalizability theory on clinical trial data to investigate sources of variation and their impact on reliability. Biometrics 2005; 61 : 295-304.
31. Radcliff K, Curry P, Hilibrand A, et al. Risk for adjacent segment and same segment reoperation after surgery for lumbar stenosis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial ( SPORT). Spine ( Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38 : 531-9.
32. Deyo RA, Martin BI, Kreuter W, et al. Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 : 1979-86.
33. Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, et al. Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years-a national analysis of 9,664 operations. Eur Spine J 2005; 14 : 659-63.
34. Javalkar V, Cardenas R, Tawfi k TA, et al. Reoperations after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. World Neurosurg 2011; 75 : 737-42.
35. Santiago FR, Milena GL, Herrera RO, et al. Morphometry of the lower lumbar vertebrae in patients with and without low back pain. Eur Spine J 2001; 10 : 228-33.