Dataset Information

Clinical validity of two different grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis: Schizas and Lee classification systems.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the learnability of two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis based on inter-observer agreement and test-retest reliability of doctors with no prior knowledge of the two systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Two clinical fellows, one novice radiology resident, one neurosurgeon, and one orthopedic surgeon, who were unaware of the two qualitative MRI grading systems prior to this study, acquainted themselves with the teaching files. All five observers independently assessed the LCCS grade of 70 patients using T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance images at the L2-3, L3-4, L3-4, and L5-S1 disc levels. Analysis was performed twice at an interval of two months. RESULTS:The inter-observer agreement among all five readers was excellent and test-retest reliability was moderate to excellent for both the Schizas and Lee systems. Positive percentage agreements were found to be over 0.8 in almost all observers with relatively narrow 95% confidence limits. CONCLUSION:Both Schizas and Lee MRI grading systems for LCCS are reliable grading systems, and can be used as a learnable method for both clinicians and radiologists.

SUBMITTER: Ko YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7252624 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical validity of two different grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis: Schizas and Lee classification systems.

Ko Yeon-Jee YJ Lee Eugene E Lee Joon Woo JW Park Chi Young CY Cho Jungheum J Kang Yusuhn Y Ahn Joong Mo JM

PloS one 20200527 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the learnability of two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis based on inter-observer agreement and test-retest reliability of doctors with no prior knowledge of the two systems.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Two clinical fellows, one novice radiology resident, one neurosurgeon, and one orthopedic surgeon, who were unaware of the two qualitative MRI grading systems prior to this study, acquainted themselves with the teaching ...[more]

PMID: 32459814

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic persistent low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis is common and disabling. Lumbar surgical interventions with decompression or fusion are most commonly performed to manage severe spinal stenosis. However, epidural injections are also frequently performed in managing central spinal stenosis. After failure of epidural steroid injections, the next sequential step is percutaneous adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis with a targeted delivery. The literature on the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central spinal stenosis after failure of epidural injections has not been widely studied.Study designA prospective evaluation.SettingAn interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain with lumbar central spinal stenosis.MethodsSeventy patients were recruited. The initial phase of the study was randomized, double-blind with a comparison of percutaneous adhesiolysis with caudal epidural injections. The 25 patients from the adhesiolysis group continued with follow-up, along with 45 additional patients, leading to a total of 70 patients. All patients received percutaneous adhesiolysis and appropriate placement of the Racz catheter, followed by an injection of 5 mL of 2% preservative-free lidocaine with subsequent monitoring in the recovery room. In the recovery room, each patient also received 6 mL of 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution, and 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone, followed by an injection of 1 mL of sodium chloride solution and removal of the catheter.Outcomes assessmentMultiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was 50% or more improvement in pain scores and ODI scores.ResultsOverall, a primary outcome or significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more was seen in 71% of patients at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures over a period of 2 years were 5.7 ± 2.73.LimitationsThe lack of a control group and a prospective design.ConclusionsSignificant relief and functional status improvement as seen in 71% of the 70 patients with percutaneous adhesiolysis utilizing local anesthetic steroids and hypertonic sodium chloride solution may be an effective management strategy in patients with chronic function limiting low back and lower extremity pain with central spinal stenosis after failure of conservatie management and fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

Project description:AbstractRetrospective cohort study.Full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar spinal canal stenosis is being performed by endoscopic surgeons as an alternative to micro-lumbar decompression in the recent years. The outcomes of the procedure are reported by few authors only. The aim of this paper is to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of full endoscopic lumbar decompression of central canal stenosis by outside-in technique at 1-year follow-up.We reviewed patients operated for lumbar central canal stenosis by full endoscopic decompression from May 2018 to November 2018. We analyzed the visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain and Oswestry disability index at pre-op, post-op, and 1-year follow-up. At the same periods, we also evaluated disc height, segmental lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis on standing X-rays and canal cross sectional area at the affected level and at the adjacent levels on magnetic resonance imaging and the facet length and facet cross-sectional area on computed tomography scans. The degree of stenosis was judged by Schizas grading and the outcome at final follow-up was evaluated by MacNab criteria.We analyzed 32 patients with 43 levels (M:F = 14:18) with an average age of 63 (±11) years. The visual analogue scale back and leg improved from 5.4 (±1.3) and 7.8 (±2.3) to 1.6 (±0.5) and 1.4 (±1.2), respectively, and Oswestry disability index improved from 58.9 (±11.2) to 28 (±5.4) at 1-year follow-up. The average operative time per level was 50 (±16.2) minutes. The canal cross sectional area, on magnetic resonance imaging, improved from 85.78 mm2 (±28.45) to 150.5 mm2 (±38.66). The lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis also improved significantly. The disc height was maintained in the postoperative period. All the radiographic improvements were maintained at 1-year follow-up. The MacNab criteria was excellent in 18 (56%), good in 11 (34%), and fair in 3 (9%) patients. None of the patients required conversion to open surgery or a revision surgery at follow-up. There was 1 patient with dural tear that was sealed with fibrin sealant patch endoscopically. There were 10 patients who had grade I stable listhesis preoperatively that did not progress at follow-up. No other complications like infection, hematoma formations etc. were observed in any patient.Full endoscopic outside-in decompression method is a safe and effective option for lumbar central canal stenosis with advantages of minimal invasive technique.

Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Project description:PurposeThis prospective cohort study reports on a modified technique, namely precise safety decompression via double percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty (DPLF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) for lateral lumbar spinal canal (LLSC) stenosis, and its short-term clinical outcomes.MethodsThe study analyzed 69 patients with single-level LLSC stenosis simultaneously occurring in both zones 1 and 2 (defined as retrodiscal space and upper bony lateral recess respectively by new LLSC classification) who underwent DPLF-PELD from November 2018 to April 2019. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to preoperative, 3 months postoperatively, and last follow-up, via leg pain/low back pain (LBP) visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and the Macnab criteria. The postoperative MRI and CT were used to confirm the complete decompression, and flexion-extension x-rays at the last follow-up were used to observe lumbar stability.ResultsAll patients successfully underwent DPLF-PELD, and the stenosis was completely decompressed, confirmed by postoperative MRI and CT. The mean follow-up duration was 13 months (range: 8-17 months). The mean preoperative leg pain VAS score is 7.05 ± 1.04 (range 5-9), which decreased to 1.03 ± 0.79(range: 0-3) at 3 months postoperatively and to 0.75 ± 0.63 (range: 0-2) by the last follow-up visit (p < 0.05). The mean preoperative ODI was 69.8 ± 9.05 (range: 52-85), which decreased to 20.3 ± 5.52 (range: 10-35) at the third month postoperatively and to 19.6 ± 5.21 (range: 10-34) by the final follow-up visit (p < 0.05). The satisfactory (excellent or good) results were 94.2%. There was one patient with aggravated symptoms, which were relieved after an open surgery. Two patients had a dural tear, and two patients suffered postoperative LBP. No recurrence or segmental instability was observed at the final follow-up.ConclusionDPLF-PELD could be a good alternative for the treatment of LLSC stenosis patients whose stenosis occurred in both zones 1 and 2.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800019551 ). Registered 18 November 2018.

Dataset Information

Clinical validity of two different grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis: Schizas and Lee classification systems.

Publications

Clinical validity of two different grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis: Schizas and Lee classification systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets