Journals / Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery / 2013 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3

Spinal stenozlu hastalarda spinal kanal çapı ve cerrahi sonuçlar

Spinal canal size and surgical outcome in spinal stenosis patients

Pages
231–236
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is possible that main reason of discordance between radiological findings and neurogenic symptoms in the literature may be that authors were overlooking several parameters when defining stenosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background data: Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spinal surgery among patients older than 65 years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material-Methods: 16 patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis based on MRI findings who were operated by the same senior spine surgeon were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is possible that main reason of discordance between radiological findings and neurogenic symptoms in the literature may be that authors were overlooking several parameters when defining stenosis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background data: Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spinal surgery among patients older than 65 years. Main aim of surgery is to decompress the neural elements. However, radiological proof of decompression and patient outcomes do not always correlate. Purpose: Main aim of this study is to investigate the correlation between spinal canal decompression and patient outcome by investigating three different parameters of canal dimensions. Material-Methods: 16 patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis based on MRI findings who were operated by the same senior spine surgeon were included in the study. Surgical outcome was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) answered prior to surgery and at the first follow- up visit. Preoperative and postoperative MRIs were compared to assess the degree of surgical decompression. Change in minimum cross-sectional area, AP and transverse diameter of the dural sac were noted. Correlation between the change in canal dimensions and patient outcome was evaluated. Results: Of the three parameters evaluated, only transverse diameter of the spinal canal showed a significant correlation with improved ODI scores. This correlation still existed after multivariate analysis with regard to normal canal dimensions. Change in cross sectional area and AP diameter of the dural sac did not improve the outcome. Conclusion: Decompression of the transverse diameter of the spinal canal is related to improved patient outcome following spinal stenosis surgery. It is possible that main reason of discordance between radiological findings and neurogenic symptoms in the literature may be that authors were overlooking several parameters when defining stenosis.

Özet

Geçmiş bilgiler: Lomber spinal stenoz 65 yaş üstü hastalarda en sık spinal cerrahi sebebidir. Cerrahinin ana amacı, nöral dokuları dekomprese etmektir. Fakat, dekompresyonun radyolojik kanıtları ve hasta sonuçları her zaman örtüşmemektedir. Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, spinal kanal boyutlarının 3 farklı parametresini inceleyerek spinal kanal dekompresyonu ve hasta sonuçları arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymaktır. Materyal-Metot: Manyetik rezonans (MR) görüntülerinde lomber spinal stenoz saptanması sonrası aynı kıdemli cerrah tarafından opere edilen 16 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hasta sonuçları cerrahi öncesinde ve ilk kontrol vizitinde doldurulan Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Cerrahi dekompresyonu değerlendirmek için ameliyat öncesi ve sonrası MR görüntüleri karşılaştırıldı. Dural kesenin minimum kesit alanı, AP ve transvers çapındaki değişimler ölçüldü. Kanal boyutlarındaki değişimler ve hasta sonuçları arasındaki ilişki incelendi. Sonuçlar: İncelenen 3 parametre arasında, sadece spinal kanal transvers çapındaki artışın ODI sonuçlarında iyileşme ile ilişkili olduğu görüldü. Bu ilişki normal kanal çaplarını da istatistiksel değerlendirmeye dahil eden multivaryant analizler sonrasında da devam etti. Kesit alanı ve AP çaplarındaki değişimlerin cerrahi sonuçları etkilemediği görüldü. Tartışma: Spinal stenoz cerrahisinde spinal kanalın transvers çapının dekompresyonu başarılı hasta sonuçları ile ilişkilidir. Literatürde radyolojik bulgular ve nörojenik semptomlar arasındaki uyumsuzluğun sebebi stenoz tanısı konulurken yazarların belli parametreleri göz ardı etmesi olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSAKAL, M., ERMUTLU, C., AYDINLI, U., MUTLU, M., KARA, K. (2013). Spinal stenozlu hastalarda spinal kanal çapı ve cerrahi sonuçlar. Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3, 231–236. https://ajindex.com/articles/213266

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72 (3): 403-408
  2. Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL, Wainner RS, Childs JD. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2012; 12 (10): 921-931
  3. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005; 30 (12): 1441- 1445
  4. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66 (8): 271-273
  5. Genevay S, Atlas SJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2010; 24 (2): 253-265
  6. Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M, Vandeputte K, Spratt KF. A prospective study on CT scan outcomes after conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16 (3): 261- 267
  7. Herno A, Partanen K, Talaslahti T, Kaukanen E, Turunen V, Suomalainen O, Airaksinen O. Long-term clinical and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy. Spine 1999; 24(15): 1533-1537
  8. Herno A, Saari T, Suomalainen O, Airaksinen O. The degree of decompressive relief and its relation to clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1999; 24(10): 1010-1014
  9. Herzog RJ, Kaiser JA, Saal JA, Saal JS. The importance of posterior epidural fat pad in lumbar central canal stenosis. Spine 1991; 16 (6 Suppl): S227- 233
  10. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137 (7): 586-597
  11. Katz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G, Lipson SJ. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1994; 20 (2): 471-483
  12. Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine 2011; 36 (20): E1335-1351
  13. Laurencin CT, Lipson SJ, Senatus P, Botchwey E, Jones TR, Koris M, Hunter J. The stenosis ratio: a new tool for the diagnosis of degenerative spinal stenosis. Int J Surg Investig 1999; 1(2): 127-131
  14. Watters WC 3rd, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ, Kreiner S, Resnick DK, Bono CM, Ghiselli G, Heggeness MH, Mazanec DJ, O’Neill C, Reitman CA, Shaffer WO, Summers JT, Toton JF; North American Spine Society. Degenerative lumb