Summary Statement. Tandem stenosis is a prevalent condition in an Asian population with the narrowest cervical canal diameters and risk factors include advanced age and increased levels of lumbar canal stenosis. Introduction. Tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) is defined as patient with concomitant spinal canal stenosis found in both cervical (C) and lumbar (L) spinal region. Few studies have reported the incidence of TSS is ranged from 5–25%, but these are all noncomparative, small cohort studies. To the best of author knowledge this is the 1st study aims to compare the prevalence of TSS and its risk factors of development in a large multiracial Asian population. Methods. A retrospective review of all mid-sagittal T2MRI whole spine image was carried out at a University hospital in year 2007. Patients with spinal tumour, fracture and congenital stenosis were excluded. Spinal stenosis was defined as canal diameter of ≤10mm, measured from the posterior cervical vertebral/disc wall to anterior surface of the corresponding lamina. Patients were divided into 4 groups, no stenosis(NS), lumbar stenosis only(LS), cervical stenosis only(CS) and TSS. Patients’ demographics, race, co-morbidities and lumbar radiological report data were examined. Potential risk factors for the development of TSS were analyzed using SPSS software. Results. 926 (479 male, 447 female) patients with average age 50 (20–96) yrs were studied. Cervical canal diameters (mm) in TSS patients were the narrowest among the 4groups with C2/3 disc: 11.6, C3/4: 9.7, C4/5: 9.4, C5/6: 8.9, C6/7: 10.0 and C7T1: 11.4mm. The incidence of TSS was 26.2%. The prevalence of TSS in Chinese was 30.7%, Indian 12.5%, Malay 22.5%. The TSS prevalence in patients with 1 level lumbar canal stenosis was 12.5%, 2 levels lumbar stenosis was 6.4% and 3 levels was 4.1%. Multivariate analysis showed patients aged between 40–59 yrs (p=0.000, Exp(B):5.8, 95%CI 2.8–12.0), aged > 60yrs (p=0.000, Exp(B): 10.5, 95%CI 4.8–22.9), Chinese race (p=0.008, Exp(B): 2.5, 95%CI 1.3–4.9), patients with 1 level lumbar stenosis (p=0.000, Exp(B): 63.3, 95%CI 29.2–137.3), 2 levels lumbar stenosis (p=0.000, Exp(B): 67.7, 95%CI 29.4–155.7) and 3 levels lumbar stenosis (p=0.000, Exp(B): 106.6, 95%CI 43.6–260.5) are statistical significant risk factors for TSS development. Conclusion. The incidence of TSS was 26.2%. TSS patients have the narrowest cervical canal measurements among the studied groups. The prevalence of TSS in Chinese is the highest (30.7%). Patients advancing in age or have increased levels of lumbar canal stenosis are at risk of developing TSS

The multimodal management of canal stenosis is increasing, and inhibitors of central sensitization are playing a crucial role in central sensitization processes. Pregabalin and gabapentin are antiepileptic drugs that reduce presynaptic excitability. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the use of pregabalin and gabapentin is effective in the symptomatic management of canal stenosis. A literature search was conducted in four databases. The inclusion criteria were studies that compared pregabalin or gabapentin with a control group in lumbar canal stenosis. Randomized clinical trials and a comparative retrospective cohort study were included. The main clinical endpoints were VAS/NRS, ODI, and RDQ (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 4, 8 weeks, and 3 months, adverse events, and walking distance were also collected. Data were combined using Review Manager 5.4 software. Six studies and 392 patients were included. The mean age was 60.25. No significant differences were observed in VAS at 2, 4, and 8 weeks: (MD: 0.23; 95% CI: −0.63-1.09), (MD: −0.04; 95% CI: −0.64 to −0.57), and (MD: −0.6; 95% CI: −1.22 to 0.02). Significant differences were observed in favor of pregabalin with respect to VAS at three months: (MD: −2.97; 95% CI: −3.43 to −2.51). No significant differences were observed in ODI (MD: −3.47; 95% CI: −7.15 to −0.21). Adverse events were significantly higher in the pregabalin/gabapentin group (OR 5.88, 95%CI 1.28-27.05). Walking distance and RDQ could not be compared, although the results were controversial. Gabapentinoids have not been shown to be superior to other drugs used in the treatment of LSS or to placebo. However, they have shown a higher incidence of adverse effects, improved results in VAS at 3 months, and a slight improvement in ambulation at 4 months in combination with NSAIDs compared to NSAIDs in monotherapy

Study Purpose. To examine the presence of radicular pain and its relationship to the degree of lumbar nerve root compression in patients with a degenerative lumbar spine condition about to undergo surgery for either lumbar disc prolapse or lumbar canal stenosis. Background. The pathophysiology underlying radicular pain is not completely understood but it is thought that nerve root compression is a key factor and from a surgical perspective, decompressing the nerve root is considered to be the key therapeutic step. However, despite often severe root compression in patients with lumbar stenosis, radicular pain is not a typical feature. Methods. Thirty-nine pre-surgical patients with either lumbar disc prolapse or lumbar canal stenosis were studied using the Standardised Evaluation of Pain (StEP), a clinical assessment tool known to predict with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity the presence or absence of lumbar radicular pain. A nerve root compression score was given from lumbar MRI for each patient by a neuroradiologist blinded to the patients history. Results. The StEP assessment tool was able to distinguish the presence or absence of radicular pain with high sensitivity and specificity. This correlated well with the pre-operative diagnosis of disc prolapse or canal stenosis. The relationship between radicular pain and nerve root compression was less clear and will be discussed. Conclusion. This study confirms StEP as a useful bedside tool for identifying the presence of radicular pain in patients with a degenerative lumbar spine condition. Nerve root compression per se does not necessarily produce radicular pain. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. None. This study has not been published or presented at a previous meeting