Compatibility of clinical presentation and imaging for patient with multiple lumbar canal stenosis at Wahidin Hospital

Year 2019, , 75 - 78, 01.07.2019

Andika Thehumury , Ruksal Saleh Jainal Arifin

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.517616

Abstract

Every
year the number of surgical procedures performs for lumbar spinal stenosis has
increased steadily over the years. Diagnosis of the patients with lumbar canal
stenosis and decision for decompression was mainly with MRI. Majority of
patients will end up with multilevel decompression. The objective of this study
is to evaluate the outcome of the patient who level of decompression based on
clinical presentation of the patient. This is a cross sectional analytical
study. Patient who was diagnosed with multiple lumbar canal stenosis by 3
orthopedic broad certified spine surgeons based on clinical presentation and CT
myelography and MRI will undergo decompression surgery. Functional outcome was
evaluated by using JOABPEQ score. The proportion of patients who has match and
unmatched clinical presentation and imaging was evaluated with Fisher exact
test. Determining the level of decompression in patient with multiple lumbar
canal stenosis should be based on clinical presentation of the patients rather
than using Imaging study. However, further authentication is required by doing
long term studies.

Keywords

Multipel lumbar canal stenosis, MRI, CT Myelography, Decompression, JOABPEQ

References

• 1. Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ 2016;352:h6234. 2. Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, et al. An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996;44:285-90. 3. Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH, et al. Spinal stenosis Prevalence and association with symptomps: t h e Framingham Study. Spine J 2009;9:545-50. 4. Yabuki S, Fukumori N, Takegami M, et al. Prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis, using the diagnostic support tool, and correlated factors in Japan: a population-based study. J Orthop Sci 2013;18:893-900. 5. Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20:1103-8. 6. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, et al. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1441-5; discussion 1446-7. 7. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010;303:1259-65.]8. Samuels J, Krasnokutsky S, Abramson SB. Osteoarthritis: a tale of three tissues. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008;66:244-50. 9. Arden NK, Leyland KM. Osteoarthritis year 2013 in review: clinical. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013;21: 1409-13. 10. Goh KJ, Khalifa W, Anslow P, Cadoux-Hudson T, Donaghy M. The clinical syndrome associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Neurol 2004;52:242-9. 11. Leone A, Guglielmi G, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Bonomo L. Lumbar intervertebral instability: a review. Radiology 2007;245:62-77. 12. Lee JY, Whang PG, Lee JY, Phillips FM, Patel AA. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Instr Course Lect 2013;62: 383-96. 13. Yoshida M, Shima K, Taniguchi Y, Tamaki T, Tanaka T. Hypertrophied ligamentum flavum in lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Pathogenesis and morphologic and immunohistochemical observation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992;17:1353-60. 14. Lee CK, Rauschning W, Glenn W. Lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis: classification, pathologic anatomy and surgical decompression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988;13:313-20. 15. Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update: lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:389-9416. Dorenbeck U, Schreyer AG, Schlaier J. Degenerative diseases of the cervical spine: comparison of a multiecho data image combination sequence with a magnetization transfer saturation pulse and cervical myelography and CT. Neuroradiology. 2004;46:306–309.17. 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;7:388–93.18. Nadja Mamisch,et all. Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis : Results of Delphi survey.Radiology: Volume 264: Number 1—July 2012.19. Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE: Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the “Port-Hole" technique. Spine 2000; 25: 865–70.20. Oertel MF, Ryang YM, Korinth MC, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V: Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery 2006; 59: 1264–9.)21. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kroger H, Andrade J, Jimenez R, Tapaninaho A. et al. Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(18):648–663).22. Radkliff K, Rihn J, Hilibrand A, DiIoro T, Tosteson T, Lurie J, et al. Does duration of symptoms in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis affect outcomes? Analysis of the Spine Outcomes Research Trial. Spine 2011. E-pub ahead of print.