Abstract. Purpose. No clinical CT based classification system is currently in use for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis. MRI scanners are not easily available, are expensive and may be contraindicated in an increasing number of patients. This study aims to propose and evaluate the reproducibility of a novel CT based classification for lumbar foraminal stenosis. Materials and Methods. The grading was developed as 4 grades. Normal foramen – Grade 0, Anteroposterior(AP)/Superoinferior (SI)(single plane) fat compression – Grade 1, Both AP/SI compression (two planes) – Grade 2 (both AP and SI) without distortion of nerve root, Grade 2 with distortion of nerve root – Grade 3. 800 lumbar foramen of a cohort of 100 random patients over the age of 60 who had undergone both CT and MRI scans were reviewed by two radiologists independently to assess agreement of the novel CT classification against the MRI based grading system of Lee et al. Interobserver(n=400) and intraobserver agreement(n=160) was also evaluated. Agreement analysis was performed using the Weighted Kappa statistic. Results. 100 patients (M:F = 45:55) with a mean age of 68.5 years (range 60 – 83 years were included in the study. The duration between CT and MRI scans was 98 days(range 0 – 540, SD – 108). There was good correlation between CT and MRI with Kappa scores (k=0.81) and intraobserver Kappa of 0.89 and 0.98 for the two readers. Conclusion. The novel CT based classification correlates well with the MRI grading system and can safely and accurately replace it where required

Purpose. To evaluate Radiological changes in the lumbosacral spine after insertion of Wallis Ligament for Foraminal Stenosis. Methods and Results. Thirty two Levels in Twenty Six patients were followed up with standardised radiographs after insertion of Wallis Ligaments for Foraminal Stenosis. Wallis ligaments as a top-off or those with prolapsed discs were not included. The Radiological parameters compared were Anterior and Posterior Disc height, Foraminal height and width, The inter-vertebral angle (IVA), Lumbar lordosis and Scoliosis if any. The presence of slips and their progression post-op was noted, as was bony lysis if any. There were ten males with thirteen levels and sixteen females with nineteen levels in the study. Eighteen levels (56.25%) were L4/L5, ten (31.25%) were L5/S1 and 4 (12.5%)were L3/L4. The average age in the series was 59.6 years (Range 37 – 89 yrs). Average follow up was 9.5 months (Range 2 to 36). The Average increase in Anterior disc height was 1.89 mm (+/−1.39), the posterior disc height increased by an average 1.09 mm (+/−1.14). Foraminal height increased by an average 3.85 mm (+/− 2.72), while foraminal width increased by 2.14 mm (+/− 1.38). The IVA increased in 16 and reduced in 15 patients, with no change in 1. Lumbar Lordosis increased in 23 patients, with an average value of 2.3°. No patient exhibited progression in scoliosis and no lysis could be identified. There were three Grade I slips pre-op; none progressed. Conclusion. Foraminal dimensions and Disc height were consistently improved after Wallis insertion. Changes in IVA and Lumbar lordosis were however variable. A longer follow up is suggested to look for sustained improvement and the presence of lysis. Ethics approval- None, Audit/service standard in trust. Interest statement - None

Introduction

In degenerative lumbar spine, it seems possible that foraminal stenosis is over-diagnosed as axial scanning is not performed in the plane of the exiting nerve root. We carried out a two-part study to determine the true incidence of foraminal stenosis.

Aims

To compare the efficacy of decompression alone (DA) with i) decompression and fusion (DF) and ii) interspinous process device (IPD) in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Outcomes of interest were both patient-reported measures of postoperative pain and function, as well as the perioperative measures of blood loss, operation duration, hospital stay, and reoperation.

Abstract

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery.

Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test.

A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point.

In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases.

Study Design

A prospective cohort study was carried out looking at the functional outcome and post-procedure translational segmental instability after multi-level lumbar decompression using a Hinge osteotomy technique.

Hypothesis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is diagnosed by a history of claudication, clinical investigation, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac on MRI or CT, and walking distance on the treadmill test. As radiological findings do not always correlate with clinical symptoms, additional diagnostic signs are needed. In patients without LSS, we observe the sedimentation of lumbar nerve roots to the dorsal part of the dural sac on supine MRI scans. In patients with LSS, this sedimentation is rarely seen. We named this phenomenon ‘sedimentation sign’ and defined the absence of sedimenting nerve roots as positive sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of LSS. We hypothesised that the new sedimentation sign discriminates between non-specific low back pain (LBP) and LSS.

Introduction

We propose that Total Hip Replacement with correction of fixed flexion deformity of the hip and exaggerated lumbar lordosis will result in relief of symptoms from spinal stenosis, possibly avoiding a spinal surgery. A sequence of patients with this dual pathology has been assessed to examine this and suggest a possible management algorithm.

The Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broad patient population, is not yet known (Barz et al. 2010).

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients with suspected LSS from 2004–2006, before the sign had been described, to assess its association with health outcomes. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or conservative treatment (physical therapy, oral pain medication). Changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from baseline to 24 month follow-up were compared between Sedimentation Sign positives and negatives in both treatment arms.

Of the 146 included patients (52% female, mean age 59 yrs), 71 underwent surgery. Baseline ODI in this treatment arm was 52%, the sign was positive in 44 patients (mean ODI improvement 25 points) and negative in 27 (ODI improvement 24), with no significant difference between groups. In the 75 patients of the conservative treatment arm, baseline ODI was 44%, the sign was negative in 45 (ODI improvement 17), and positive in 30 (ODI improvement 5). Here a positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI improvement compared with sign negatives (t-test, p=0.003).

This study allowed an unbiased clinical validation of the Sedimentation Sign by avoiding it influencing treatment selection. In the conservative treatment arm a positive sign identifies a group of patients who are less likely to benefit. In these cases, surgery might be effective; however, this needs confirmation in prospective studies.