medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8560 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión Científica de la Federación Mexicana de Colegios de Ortopedia y Traumatología, A.C. (FEMECOT)

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Ortho-tips 2018; 14 (1)

The value of radiographic measurements in lumbar stenosis

Sánchez GO, González CAC, Jiménez ÁJM

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 11-16
PDF size: 163.51 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Lumbar stenosis is one of the main causes of low back pain worldwide. It manifests initially with lumbalgia, progresses with radiculopathy, to a sensory and muscular condition of the lower limbs. The fundamental symptom is the spinal pain of mechanical characteristics. The anamnesis identifies the cases of neurogenic claudication typical of the Lumbar stenosis and the physical examination detects the signs of radicular affection. Stenosis is defined statistically and is measured in areas where the bone channel is narrowest in the computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Radiographic spinal stenosis assesses a spinal canal ‹ 10 mm in diameter and is only relevant if there is neurogenic claudication or pain irradiated in a concordant dermatomal path. Lumbar stenosis presents factors that can be measured, and values that are not within parameters established in these reference values contribute to directly affect or predict a risk factor to develop Lumbar stenosis. Objective: Apply diagnostic tests by image to each pathology of the lumbar spine, to avoid performing dangerous and ineffective techniques for the diagnosis or conservative or surgical management of a specific pathology in the lumbar spine. Conclusion: Radiological measurements in the presurgical evaluation of Lumbar stenosis based initially with simple radiographs, then computed tomography and later magnetic resonance imaging and sarachradiculography; they will be of importance to determine the therapeutic behavior in the pathology of Lumbar stenosis, as well as to predict the evolution of the disease and the expected results in case of opting for surgical treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. Chou D, Samartzis D, Bellabarba C, Patel A, Luk KD, Kisser JM, et al. Degenerative magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36 (21 Suppl): S43-S53.

  2. Kovacs FM, Arana E, Royuela A, Estremera A, Amengual G, Asenjo B, et al. Vertebral endplate changes are not associated with chronic low back pain among Southern European subjects: a case control study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012; 33 (8): 1519-1524.

  3. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, et al. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15 Suppl 2: S192-S300.

  4. Chou R, Huffman LH. Evaluation & management of low back pain; evidence review for the American Pain Society. Orego: Evidence-based Practice Center; 2007.

  5. Chou R, Qaseem A, Owens DK, Shekelle P; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Diagnostic imaging for low back pain: advice for high-value health care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154 (3): 181-189.

  6. Petersen GL, Finnerup NB, Colloca L, Amanzio M, Price DD, Jensen TS, et al. The magnitude of nocebo effects in pain: a meta-analysis. Pain. 2014; 155 (8): 1426-1434.

  7. Modic MT, Obuchowski NA, Ross JS, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Grooff PN, Mazanec DJ, et al. Acute low back pain and radiculopathy: MR imaging findings and their prognostic role and effect on outcome. Radiology. 2005; 237 (2): 597-604.

  8. Rodríguez-Recio F, Sanz JC, Peiró S, Vega S. Utilización inapropiada de la resonancia magnética lumbar en un área de salud. Radiología. 1999; 41: 553-556.

  9. Kovacs FM, Arana E, Royuela A, Cabrera A, Casillas C, Piñero P, et al. Appropriateness of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging in Spain. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82 (6): 1008-1014.

  10. Webster BS, Cifuentes M. Relationship of early magnetic resonance imaging for work-related acute low back pain with disability and medical utilization outcomes. J Occup Environ Med. 2010; 52 (9): 900-907.

  11. van Rijn JC, Klemetsö N, Reitsma JB, Majoie CB, Hulsmans FJ, Peul WC, et al. Observer variation in MRI evaluation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184 (1): 299-303.

  12. Maus TP. Imaging of spinal stenosis: neurogenic intermittent claudication and cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Radiol Clin North Am. 2012; 50 (4): 651-679.

  13. Kanno H, Ozawa H, Koizumi Y, Morozumi N, Aizawa T, Kusakabe T, et al. Dynamic change of dural sac cross-sectional area in axial loaded magnetic resonance imaging correlates with the severity of clinical symptoms in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37 (3): 207-213.

  14. Kovacs FM, Seco J, Royuela A, Corcoll Reixach J, Abraira V; Spanish Back Pain Research Network. Predicting the evolution of low back pain patients in routine clinical practice: results from a registry within the Spanish National Health Service. Spine J. 2012; 12 (11): 1008-1020.

  15. Lee JC, Cha JG, Yoo JH, Kim HK, Kim HJ, Shin BJ. Radiographic grading of facet degeneration, is it reliable? - a comparison of MR or CT grading with histologic grading in lumbar fusion candidates. Spine J. 2012; 12 (6): 507-514.

  16. Izzo R, Guarnieri G, Guglielmi G, Muto M. Biomechanics of the spine. Part II: spinal instability. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82 (1): 127-138.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com