Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Beside symptoms and clinical signs radiological findings are crucial in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). We investigate which quantitative radiological signs are described in the literature and which radiological criteria are used to establish inclusion criteria in clinical studies evaluating different treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods
A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library to identify papers reporting on radiological criteria to describe LSS and systematic reviews investigating the effects of different treatment modalities.Results
25 studies reporting on radiological signs of LSS and four systematic reviews related to the evaluation of different treatments were found. Ten different parameters were identified to quantify lumbar spinal stenosis. Most often reported measures for central stenosis were antero-posterior diameter (< 10 mm) and cross-sectional area (< 70 mm(2)) of spinal canal. For lateral stenosis height and depth of the lateral recess, and for foraminal stenosis the foraminal diameter were typically used. Only four of 63 primary studies included in the systematic reviews reported on quantitative measures for defining inclusion criteria of patients in prognostic studies.Conclusions
There is a need for consensus on well-defined, unambiguous radiological criteria to define lumbar spinal stenosis in order to improve diagnostic accuracy and to formulate reliable inclusion criteria for clinical studies.
SUBMITTER: Steurer J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3161920 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsElectronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions.ResultsNineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference -3.7, 95% confidence interval -15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval -9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes.ConclusionsThe relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.
| S-EPMC4378944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is caused by neural compression due to narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal or neural foramen. Surgical intervention is a standard treatment for LSS; however, the steep increase in the surgical rate, post-operative complications, and comparatively low long-term satisfaction are considered to be limitations of this surgical approach. Conversely, acupotomy is a minimally invasive technique that combines the effects of conventional acupuncture with micro-incision, which may offer an alternative to surgery for the treatment of LSS. This review was conducted to investigate and critically review the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of acupotomy for LSS.MethodsEleven databases were searched from their respective inception dates to December 28, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupotomy and wait-list, sham treatment, or active controls were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using risk-of-bias tool.ResultsSeven RCTs were included in this review and meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor. The acupotomy treatment group was associated with significantly lower visual analogue scale scores (range 0∼10) (5 RCTs; mean difference [MD] -1.55, 95% confidence interval [CIs] -2.60 to -0.50; I = 94%) and higher Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (3 RCTs; MD 4.70, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.68; I = 0%) compared to the active control group. In subgroup analysis based on the type of active controls, acupotomy retained significant benefits over lumbar traction and acupuncture, as well as over lumbar traction, spinal decompression, and acupuncture. Safety data were reported in only 1 study, and no adverse events occurred in either the acupotomy or the acupuncture control group.ConclusionAccording to current evidence, acupotomy might be beneficial for treating LSS. Acupotomy showed consistent superiority over lumbar traction, but the results were mixed in comparisons with other interventions, such as spinal decompression and acupuncture. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the poor methodological quality of the included studies, and potential small-study effects. Further larger, high-quality, rigorous RCTs should be conducted on this topic and rigorous reporting of acupotomy procedures and safety data should be encouraged.
| S-EPMC6708781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in substantial pain and disability. It is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients over 65 years. Lumbar spinal stenosis is a clinical syndrome of pain in the buttocks or lower extremities, with or without back pain. It is associated with reduced space available for the neural and vascular elements of the lumbar spine. The condition is often exacerbated by standing, walking, or lumbar extension and relieved by forward flexion, sitting, or recumbency. Clinical care and research into lumbar spinal stenosis is complicated by the heterogeneity of the condition, the lack of standard criteria for diagnosis and inclusion in studies, and high rates of anatomic stenosis on imaging studies in older people who are completely asymptomatic. The options for non-surgical management include drugs, physiotherapy, spinal injections, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, few high quality randomized trials have looked at conservative management. A systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific type of non-surgical treatment. Several different surgical procedures are used to treat patients who do not improve with non-operative therapies. Given that rapid deterioration is rare and that symptoms often wax and wane or gradually improve, surgery is almost always elective and considered only if sufficiently bothersome symptoms persist despite trials of less invasive interventions. Outcomes (leg pain and disability) seem to be better for surgery than for non-operative treatment, but the evidence is heterogeneous and often of limited quality.
| S-EPMC6887476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDynamic interspinous spacers, such as X-stop, Coflex, DIAM, and Aperius, are widely used for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, controversy remains as to whether dynamic interspinous spacer use is superior to traditional decompressive surgery.MethodsMedline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched during August 2013. A track search was performed on February 27, 2014. Study was included in this review if it was: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomized prospective comparison study, (2) comparing the clinical outcomes for interspinous spacer use versus traditional decompressive surgery, (3) in a minimum of 30 patients, (4) with a follow-up duration of at least 12 months.ResultsTwo RCTs and three non-randomized prospective studies were included, with 204 patients in the interspinous spacer (IS) group and 217 patients in the traditional decompressive surgery (TDS) group. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the IS and TDS groups for low back pain (WMD: 1.2; 95% CI: -10.12, 12.53; P?=?0.03; I2?=?66%), leg pain (WMD: 7.12; 95% CI: -3.88, 18.12; P?=?0.02; I2?=?70%), ODI (WMD: 6.88; 95% CI: -14.92, 28.68; P?=?0.03; I2?=?79%), RDQ (WMD: -1.30, 95% CI: -3.07, 0.47; P?=?0.00; I2?=?0%), or complications (RR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.61, 3.14; P?=?0.23; I2?=?28%). The TDS group had a significantly lower incidence of reoperation (RR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.77, 6.31; P?=?0.60; I2?=?0%).ConclusionAlthough patients may obtain some benefits from interspinous spacers implanted through a minimally invasive technique, interspinous spacer use is associated with a higher incidence of reoperation and higher cost. The indications, risks, and benefits of using an interspinous process device should be carefully considered before surgery.
| S-EPMC4014612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose:To develop a self-administered diagnostic screening questionnaire for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) consisting of items with high content validity and to investigate the diagnostic value of the questionnaire and the items. Patients and Methods:A self-reported diagnostic LSS screening questionnaire was developed based on items from the existing literature describing key symptoms of LSS. The screening questionnaire (index test) was to be tested in a cohort of patients with persistent lumbar and/or leg pain recruited from a Danish publicly funded outpatient secondary care spine clinic with clinicians performing the reference test. However, to avoid unnecessary collection of data if the screening questionnaire proved to be of limited value, a case-control design was incorporated into the cohort design including an interim analysis. Additional cases for the case-control study were recruited at two Danish publicly funded spine surgery departments. Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated for each individual item, and AUC (area under the curve) was calculated to examine the performance of the full questionnaire. Results:A 13-item Danish questionnaire was developed and tested in 153 cases and 230 controls. The interim analysis was not in favour of continuing the cohort study, and therefore, only results from the case-control study are reported. There was a positive association for all items except the presence of back pain. However, the association was only moderate with ORs up to 3.3. When testing the performance of the whole questionnaire, an AUC of 0.72 was reached with a specificity of 20% for a fixed sensitivity of 95%. Conclusion:The items were associated with LSS and therefore have some potential to identify LSS patients. However, the association was not strong enough to provide sufficient accuracy for a diagnostic tool. Additional dimensions of symptoms of LSS need identification to obtain a reliable questionnaire for screening purposes.
| S-EPMC7450213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLumbar spinal degenerative disease (LSDD), unresponsive to conservative therapy, is commonly treated by surgical decompression and interbody fusion. Since facet joint incompetence has been suggested as responsible for the entire phenomenon of spinal degeneration, facet stabilization can be considered as an alternative technique to treat symptomatic spinal degenerative disease. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies utilizing lumbar facet joint fixation techniques for LSDD to assess their safety and efficacy.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, with no limits in terms of date of publication. Demographic data, inclusion criteria, clinical and radiological outcome, frequency of adverse events (AEs), and follow-up time were evaluated.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included with a total of 1577 patients. The techniques used for facet arthrodesis were Goel intra-articular spacers in 21 patients (5.3%), Facet Wedge in 198 patients (15.8%), facet screws fixation techniques in 1062 patients (52.6%), and facet joints arthroplasty in 296 patients (26.3%). Clinical outcomes were assessed through the evaluation of pain relief and improvement in functional outcome. Radiological outcomes were assessed by the evaluation of proper positioning of instrumentation, solid bony fusion rate, and preservation of disk height. AE's mainly observed were pseudoarthrosis, reoperation, instrumentation displacement/malpositioning/migration, neurological impairment, deep vein thrombosis, and infections. The mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 11.7 years.ConclusionOur data demonstrate that facet joint arthrodesis appears to be effective in managing LSDD. These findings, however, are limited by the small sample size of patients. Accordingly, larger series are needed before formal recommendations can be made.
| S-EPMC9910129 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A considerable number of patients who undergo surgery for spinal stenosis have residual symptoms and inferior function and health-related quality of life after surgery. There have been few studies on factors that may predict outcome. We tried to find predictors of outcome in surgery for spinal stenosis using patient- and imaging-related factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 109 patients in the Swedish Spine Register with central spinal stenosis that were operated on by decompression without fusion were prospectively followed up 1 year after surgery. Clinical outcome scores included the EQ-5D, the Oswestry disability index, self-estimated walking distance, and leg and back pain levels (VAS). Central dural sac area, number of levels with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis were included in the MRI analysis. Multivariable analyses were performed to search for correlation between patient-related and imaging factors and clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Several factors predicted outcome statistically significantly. Duration of leg pain exceeding 2 years predicted inferior outcome in terms of leg and back pain, function, and HRLQoL. Regular and intermittent preoperative users of analgesics had higher levels of back pain at follow-up than those not using analgesics. Low preoperative function predicted low function and dissatisfaction at follow-up. Low preoperative EQ-5D scores predicted a high degree of leg and back pain. Narrow dural sac area predicted more gains in terms of back pain at follow-up and lower absolute leg pain. INTERPRETATION: Multiple factors predict outcome in spinal stenosis surgery, most importantly duration of symptoms and preoperative function. Some of these are modifiable and can be targeted. Our findings can be used in the preoperative patient information and aid the surgeon and the patient in a shared decision making process.
| S-EPMC3488183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMucosal Leishmaniasis (ML), a neglected tropical disease caused by Leishmania parasites, impairs the quality of life of under-resourced populations in South America. If not treated promptly, this disease progresses to facial deformities and death. The low sensitivity of microscopy results and the unavailability of other accurate tests hamper the diagnosis. As clinical criteria are readily available in any setting, these may be combined in a syndromic algorithm, which in turn can be used as a diagnostic tool. We explore potential clinical criteria for a syndromic diagnostic algorithm for ML in rural healthcare settings in South America.Methodology/principal findingsThe protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO with the number: CRD42017074148. In patients with ML, described in case series identified through a systematic retrieval process, we explored the cumulative ML detection rates of clinical criteria. Participants: all patients with active mucosal disease from an endemic area in South America. Any original, non-treatment study was eligible, and case reports were excluded. PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCIELO, and LILACS databases were searched without restrictions. The risk of bias was assessed with the JBI checklist for case series. We included 10 full texts describing 192 ML patients. Male gender had the highest detection rate (88%), followed by ulcer of the nasal mucosa (77%), age >15 (69%), and symptom duration >4 months (63%).SignificanceWithin this selection of patients, we found that the male gender, ulcer of the nasal mucosa, age >15, and symptom duration >4 months lead to the highest detection rates. However, higher detection comes -naturally- with a higher rate of false positives as well. As we only included ML patients, this could not be verified. Therefore, the criteria that we found to be most promising should be validated in a well-designed prospective study.
| S-EPMC9365133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2021. Eligible RCTs that contained at least two of the following surgical procedures, bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUL), decompression with conventional laminectomy (CL), decompression with fusion (DF), endoscopic decompression (ED), interspinous process devices only (IPDs), decompression with interlaminar stabilization (DILS), decompression with lumbar spinal process-splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MTD), would be included after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Twenty eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 2201 patients enrolled. The NMA showed that the following surgical procedures ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking) when compared with CL and DF: DILS for ODI (SUCRA 87.8%); LSPSL for back pain (95%); and MTD for leg pain (95.6%). MTD ranked among the top three surgical procedures for most outcomes. The quality of the synthesized evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. DILS, LSPSL, MTD, IPDs, and ED are the most effective procedures for patients with single-segment LSS. Because of combining efficacy and safety, MTD may be the most promising routine surgical option for treating single-segment LSS.
| S-EPMC9251271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal multimorbidity is common and coexisting lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) has been reported. The aim of this review was to report the prevalence of multimorbid degenerative LSS with knee or hip OA based on clinical and/or imaging case definitions.MethodsLiterature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL up to May 2021. Studies involving adults with cross-sectional data to estimate the prevalence of co-occurring LSS with knee or hip OA were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were stratified according to index and comorbid condition, and by case definitions (imaging, clinical, and combined).ResultsTen studies from five countries out of 3891 citations met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 44 to 2,857,999 (median 230) and the mean age in the included studies range from 61 to 73 years (median 66 years). All studies were from secondary care or mixed settings. Nine studies used a combined definition of LSS and one used a clinical definition. Imaging, clinical, and combined case definitions of knee and hip OA were used. The prevalence of multimorbid LSS and knee or hip OA ranged from 0 to 54%, depending on the specified index condition and case definitions used. Six studies each provided prevalence data for index LSS and comorbid knee OA (prevalence range: 5 to 41%) and comorbid hip OA (prevalence range: 2 to 35%). Two studies provided prevalence data for index knee OA and comorbid LSS (prevalence range 17 to 54%). No studies reporting prevalence data for index hip OA and comorbid LSS were found. Few studies used comparable case definitions and all but one study were rated as high risk of bias.ConclusionsThere is evidence that multimorbid LSS with knee or hip OA occurs in people (0 to 54%), although results are based on studies with high risk of bias and surgical populations. Variability in LSS and OA case definitions limit the comparability of studies and prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution.Review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42020177759 ).
| S-EPMC8876450 | biostudies-literature