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

Background. Epidural steroid injections can provide temporary relief of symptoms in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Surgery is indicated when conservative measures fail. We hypothesise that patients who gain temporary relief of symptoms from the administration of epidural steroid injections are more likely to result in an improvement in symptoms following surgical intervention compared to patients who do not respond to injection therapy. Method. The records of patients who had received both an epidural injection and surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis between July 2008 and July 2010 were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Relief of symptoms following epidural injection was noted at 6 weeks post procedure and the patients symptoms following surgical intervention was noted and classified according to MacNab's criteria at 3 months post-surgery. Results. 60 patients who received both an epidural injection and surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis were identified. 76% of patients who gained relief of symptoms from epidural injection scored good or excellent according to MacNab's criteria following surgery (n=34). Only 30% of patients who did not respond to injection therapy scored good or excellent according to MacNab's criteria following surgical intervention (n=5). Conclusion. Patients who gained temporary relief of symptoms from epidural injection were more likely to benefit from surgical intervention in the treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained. We confirm that this abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting

Objective. Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disorder mostly caused by the arthritic process. In cases with refractory complaints or significant neurologic deficit, decompressive surgery with or without instrumented fusion may be indicated. We aimed to investigate the surgical outcome of multi-level LSS in the patient with stable spine treated by simple decompression versus decompression and instrumented fusion. Methods: We retrospectively studied 51 patients (25 male, 26 female) with stable multi-level (>2 levels) LSS who were treated by decompressive surgery alone (group A, 31 cases) and decompression and instrumented fusion (group B, 20 cases) and followed them for more than two years. The patients’ disability and pain were assessed with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), respectively. At the last follow-up visit, patient satisfaction with surgery was also scored. Results: The two groups were homogeneous in terms of age, sex, severity of disability and pain. Surgery could significantly improve pain and disability in both groups. Preoperative ODI in group A and B were 51.0±23.7 and 54.5±22.9, respectively, however at the last follow-up visit these parameters improved to 23.1±21.1 and 36.6±21.4 showing a statistical significance. Mean patient satisfaction with surgical intervention was also higher in the simple decompression group, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion: In surgical treatment of the patients with multi-level but stable LSS, simple decompression versus decompression and instrumented fusion could achieve more disability improvement for more than two years of follow-up

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