Aims. Developmental cervical spinal stenosis (DcSS) is a well-known predisposing factor for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) but there is a lack of consensus on its definition. This study aims to define DcSS based on MRI, and its multilevel characteristics, to assess the prevalence of DcSS in the general population, and to evaluate the presence of DcSS in the prediction of developing DCM. Methods. This cross-sectional study analyzed MRI spine morphological parameters at C3 to C7 (including anteroposterior (AP) diameter of spinal canal, spinal cord, and vertebral body) from DCM patients (n = 95) and individuals recruited from the general population (n = 2,019). Level-specific median AP spinal canal diameter from DCM patients was used to screen for stenotic levels in the population-based cohort. An individual with multilevel (≥ 3 vertebral levels) AP canal diameter smaller than the DCM median values was considered as having DcSS. The most optimal cut-off canal diameter per level for DcSS was determined by receiver operating characteristic analyses, and multivariable logistic regression was performed for the prediction of developing DCM that required surgery. Results. A total of 2,114 individuals aged 64.6 years (SD 11.9) who underwent surgery from March 2009 to December 2016 were studied. The most optimal cut-off canal diameters for DcSS are: C3 < 12.9 mm, C4 < 11.8 mm, C5 < 11.9 mm, C6 < 12.3 mm, and C7 < 13.3 mm. Overall, 13.0% (262 of 2,019) of the population-based cohort had multilevel DcSS. Multilevel DcSS (odds ratio (OR) 6.12 (95% CI 3.97 to 9.42); p < 0.001) and male sex (OR 4.06 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.45); p < 0.001) were predictors of developing DCM. Conclusion. This is the first MRI-based study for defining DcSS with multilevel canal narrowing. Level-specific cut-off canal diameters for DcSS can be used for early identification of individuals at risk of developing DCM. Individuals with DcSS at ≥ three levels and male sex are recommended for close monitoring or early intervention to avoid traumatic spinal cord injuries from stenosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1333–1341

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in spinal imaging characteristics between subjects with or without lumbar developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) in a population-based cohort. Methods. This was a radiological analysis of 2,387 participants who underwent L1-S1 MRI. Means and ranges were calculated for age, sex, BMI, and MRI measurements. Anteroposterior (AP) vertebral canal diameters were used to differentiate those with DSS from controls. Other imaging parameters included vertebral body dimensions, spinal canal dimensions, disc degeneration scores, and facet joint orientation. Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests were conducted to search for measurement differences between those with DSS and controls. In order to identify possible associations between DSS and MRI parameters, those who were statistically significant in the univariate binary logistic regression were included in a multivariate stepwise logistic regression after adjusting for demographics. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported where appropriate. Results. Axial AP vertebral canal diameter (p < 0.001), interpedicular distance (p < 0.001), AP dural sac diameter (p < 0.001), lamina angle (p < 0.001), and sagittal mid-vertebral body height (p < 0.001) were significantly different between those identified as having DSS and controls. Narrower interpedicular distance (OR 0.745 (95% CI 0.618 to 0.900); p = 0.002) and AP dural sac diameter (OR 0.506 (95% CI 0.400 to 0.641); p < 0.001) were associated with DSS. Lamina angle (OR 1.127 (95% CI 1.045 to 1.214); p = 0.002) and right facet joint angulation (OR 0.022 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.247); p = 0.002) were also associated with DSS. No association was observed between disc parameters and DSS. Conclusion. From this large-scale cohort, the canal size is found to be independent of body stature. Other than spinal canal dimensions, abnormal orientations of lamina angle and facet joint angulation may also be a result of developmental variations, leading to increased likelihood of DSS. Other skeletal parameters are spared. There was no relationship between DSS and soft tissue changes of the spinal column, which suggests that DSS is a unique result of bony maldevelopment. These findings require validation in other ethnicities and populations. Level of Evidence: I (diagnostic study). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):725–733

Aims. To study the associations of lumbar developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) with low back pain (LBP), radicular leg pain, and disability. Methods. This was a cross-sectional study of 2,206 subjects along with L1-S1 axial and sagittal MRI. Clinical and radiological information regarding their demographics, workload, smoking habits, anteroposterior (AP) vertebral canal diameter, spondylolisthesis, and MRI changes were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-squared tests were conducted to search for differences between subjects with and without DSS. Associations of LBP and radicular pain reported within one month (30 days) and one year (365 days) of the MRI, with clinical and radiological information, were also investigated by utilizing univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Results. Subjects with DSS had higher prevalence of radicular leg pain, more pain-related disability, and lower quality of life (all p < 0.05). Subjects with DSS had 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.1; p = 0.027) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6; p = 0.001) times higher odds of having radicular leg pain in the past month and the past year, respectively. However, DSS was not associated with LBP. Although, subjects with a spondylolisthesis had 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.5; p = 0.011) and 2.0 (95% CI 1.2 to 3.2; p = 0.008) times greater odds to experience LBP in the past month and the past year, respectively. Conclusion. This large-scale study identified DSS as a risk factor of acute and chronic radicular leg pain. DSS was seen in 6.9% of the study cohort and these patients had narrower spinal canals. Subjects with DSS had earlier onset of symptoms, more severe radicular leg pain, which lasted for longer and were more likely to have worse disability and poorer quality of life. In these patients there is an increased likelihood of nerve root compression due to a pre-existing narrowed canal, which is important when planning surgery as patients are likely to require multi-level decompression surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):131–140

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) on the risk of re-operation at an adjacent level. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective study of 235 consecutive patients who had undergone decompression-only surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and had a minimum five-year follow-up. There were 106 female patients (45.1%) and 129 male patients (54.9%), with a mean age at surgery of 66.8 years (. sd. 11.3). We excluded those with adult deformity and spondylolisthesis. Presenting symptoms, levels operated on initially and at re-operation were studied. MRI measurements included the anteroposterior diameter of the bony spinal canal, the degree of disc degeneration, and the thickness of the ligamentum flavum. DSS was defined by comparative measurements of the bony spinal canal. Risk factors for re-operation at the adjacent level were determined and included in a multivariate stepwise logistic regression for prediction modelling. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results. Of the 235 patients, 21.7% required re-operation at an adjacent segment. Re-operation at an adjacent segment was associated with DSS (p = 0.026), the number of levels decompressed (p = 0.008), and age at surgery (p = 0.013). Multivariate regression model (p < 0.001) controlled for other confounders showed that DSS was a significant predictor of re-operation at an adjacent segment, with an adjusted OR of 3.93. Conclusion. Patients with DSS who have undergone lumbar spinal decompression are 3.9 times more likely to undergo future surgery at an adjacent level. This is a poor prognostic indicator that can be identified prior to index decompression surgery