European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 679–685 | Cite as

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR Imaging

  • Mustafa Sirvanci
  • Mona Bhatia
  • Kursat Ali Ganiyusufoglu
  • Cihan Duran
  • Mehmet Tezer
  • Cagatay Ozturk
  • Mehmet Aydogan
  • Azmi Hamzaoglu
Original Article

Abstract

Because neither the degree of constriction of the spinal canal considered to be symptomatic for lumbar spinal stenosis nor the relationship between the clinical appearance and the degree of a radiologically verified constriction is clear, a correlation of patient’s disability level and radiographic constriction of the lumbar spinal canal is of interest. The aim of this study was to establish a relationship between the degree of radiologically established anatomical stenosis and the severity of self-assessed Oswestry Disability Index in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Sixty-three consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who were scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and completed a self-assessment Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire. Quantitative image evaluation for lumbar spinal stenosis included the dural sac cross-sectional area, and qualitative evaluation of the lateral recess and foraminal stenosis were also performed. Every patient subsequently answered the national translation of the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire and the percentage disability was calculated. Statistical analysis of the data was performed to seek a relationship between radiological stenosis and percentage disability recorded by the Oswestry Disability Index. Upon radiological assessment, 27 of the 63 patients evaluated had severe and 33 patients had moderate central dural sac stenosis; 11 had grade 3 and 27 had grade 2 nerve root compromise in the lateral recess; 22 had grade 3 and 37 had grade 2 foraminal stenosis. On the basis of the percentage disability score, of the 63 patients, 10 patients demonstrated mild disability, 13 patients moderate disability, 25 patients severe disability, 12 patients were crippled and three patients were bedridden. Radiologically, eight patients with severe central stenosis and nine patients with moderate lateral stenosis demonstrated only minimal disability on percentage Oswestry Disability Index scores. Statistical evaluation of central and lateral radiological stenosis versus Oswestry Disability Index percentage scores showed no significant correlation. In conclusion, lumbar spinal stenosis remains a clinico-radiological syndrome, and both the clinical picture and the magnetic resonance imaging findings are important when evaluating and discussing surgery with patients having this diagnosis. MR imaging has to be used to determine the levels to be decompressed.

Keywords

Spine, abnormalities Spine, MR Lumbar spinal stenosis Oswestry Disability Index 

References

  1. 1.
    Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 20:1178–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbit E, Pannullo S (2001) Lumbar stenosis. A clinical review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchoix J, Crock HV, Dommisse GF, Edgar MA, Gargano FP, Jacobson RE, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Kurihara A, Langenskiold A, Macnab I, McIvor GW, Newman PH, Paine KW, Russin LA, Sheldon J, Tile M, Urist MR, Wilson WE, Wiltse LL (1976) Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:4–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atlas SJ, Delitto A (2006) Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:198–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW (1990) Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:403–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL, Carragee JM (2005) Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J 5:24–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritz JM, Delitto A, Welch WC, Erhard RE (1998) Lumbar spinal stenosis: a review of current concepts in evaluation, management, and outcome measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79:700–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hazard RG, Bendix A, Fenwick JW (1991) Disability exaggeration as a predictor of functional restoration outcomes for patients with chronic low-back pain. Spine 16:1062–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T (1994) Computed tomography after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patients’ pain patterns, walking capacity, and subjective disability had no correlation with computed tomography findings. Spine 19:1975–1978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hurri H, Slatis P, Soini J, Tallroth K, Alaranta H, Laine T, Heliovaara M (1998) Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of long-term outcome 12 years after operative and conservative treatment. J Spinal Disord 11:110–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, Stromqvist B (1997) A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: clinical features related to radiographic findings. Spine 22:2932–2937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karantanas AH, Zibis AH, Papaliaga M, Georgiou E, Rousogiannis S (1998) Dimensions of the lumbar spinal canal: variations and correlations with somatometric parameters using CT. Eur Radiol 8:1581–1585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G, Lipson SJ (1994) Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 20:471–483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 29:726–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lohman CM, Tallroth K, Kettunen JA, Lindgren KA (2006) Comparison of radiologic signs and clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis. Spine 31:1834–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McNab I (1950) Spondylolisthesis with an intact neural arch: the so-called pseudo-spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 32:325–333Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panagiotis ZE, Athanasios K, Panagiotis D, Minos T, Charis M, Elias L (2006) Functional outcome of surgical treatment for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop 77:670–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panjabi MM, Takata K, Goel VK (1983) Kinematics of the lumbar intervertebral foramen. Spine 8:348–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Penning L, Wilmink JT (1987) Posture-dependent bilateral compression of L4 or L5 nerve roots in facet hypertrophy. A dynamic CT-myelographic study. Spine 12:488–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter RW (1996) Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 21:2046–2052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Porter RW, Ward D (1992) Cauda equina dysfunction: the significance of multiple level pathology. Spine 17:9–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A (2002) The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 27:84–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schonstrom N, Boleander NF, Spengler DM (1985) The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine 10:806–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schonstrom N, Lindahl S, Willen J, Hansson T (1989) Dynamic changes in the dimensions of the lumbar spinal canal: an experimental study in vitro. J Orthop Res 7:115–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sortland O, Magnaes B, Hauge T (1977) Functional myelography with metrizamide in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Radiol Suppl 355:42–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spivak JM (1998) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1053–1066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Szpalski M, Gunzburg R (2004) Lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical features and new trends in surgical treatment. Geriatr Times 5(4):11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Szpalski M, Gunzburg R (2003) Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verbiest H (1977) Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of the lumbar vertebral column. A review of twenty seven years experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59:181–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weishaupt D, Schmid MR, Zanetti M, Boos N, Romanowski B, Kissling RO, Dvorak J, Hodler J (2000) Positional MR Imaging of the lumbar spine: does it demonstrate nerve root compromise not visible at conventional MR Imaging? Radiology 215:247–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wildermuth S, Zanetti M, Duewell S, Schmid MR, Romanowski B, Benini A, Boni T, Hodler J (1998) Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography. Radiology 207:391–398PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Sirvanci
    • 1
  • Mona Bhatia
    • 2
  • Kursat Ali Ganiyusufoglu
    • 2
  • Cihan Duran
    • 1
  • Mehmet Tezer
    • 3
  • Cagatay Ozturk
    • 3
  • Mehmet Aydogan
    • 3
  • Azmi Hamzaoglu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Radiologyİstanbul Bilim UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyFlorence Nightingale HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.İstanbul Spine CenterFlorence Nightingale HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations