European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 2666–2675 | Cite as

Changes in dural sac caliber with standing MRI improve correlation with symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis

  • Yvonne Yan On Lau
  • Ryan Ka Lok Lee
  • James Francis Griffith
  • Carol Lai Yee Chan
  • Sheung Wai Law
  • Kin On Kwok
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Weight bearing does alter the dimension of lumbar spinal canal, but no study has analyzed its clinical correlation. This study aims to evaluate whether the changes in dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) and sagittal anteroposterior (AP) diameter on standing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) correlate better with clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

Seventy consecutive patients with neurogenic claudication were prospectively recruited to undergo a 0.25-T MRI examination performed in supine and standing positions. Clinical symptoms including the walking distance, Visual Analogue Score of leg pain, Chinese Oswestry Disability Index, and short form-12 were assessed. DSCA and sagittal AP diameter at the most constricted spinal level on supine and standing positions were measured and correlated with each clinical symptom by Pearson correlation coefficients (r).

Results

DSCA and AP diameter on standing MRI and their % changes from supine to standing showed significant (r = 0.55, 0.53, −0.44, −0.43; p < 0.001) and better correlations than those on supine MRI (r = 0.39, 0.42; p < 0.001) with walking distance. Significant correlations were also found between dural sac calibers on standing MRI and leg pain scores (r = −0.20, r = −0.25; p < 0.05). Patients walking ≤500 m had a significantly smaller DSCA, narrower AP diameter and greater % change in dural sac calibers (p < 0.01) than those walking >500 m. A >30% reduction of DSCA and AP diameter was observed in patients with worse claudication distance (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

DSCA and sagittal AP diameter on standing MRI correlate significantly and better than findings on supine MRI with claudication symptoms. Standing MRI demonstrates dynamic changes of dural sac and provides an additional value to supine MRI in correlating clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Keywords

Standing position Functional magnetic resonance imaging Weight bearing Spinal stenosis Intermittent claudication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor De Feng Wang for calculation of dural sac cross-sectional area and radiographers of the Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology at Prince of Wales Hospital for technical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F et al (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 20:1178–1186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    White A III, Panjabi M (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirasawa Y, Bashir WA, Smith FW et al (2007) Postural changes of the dural sac in the lumbar spines of asymptomatic individuals using positional standup magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 32:E136–E140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coulier B (2000) Evaluation of lumbar canal stenosis: decubitus imaging methods versus flexion extension myelography and surface measurements versus the diameter of the dural sac. JBR-BTR 83(2):61–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansson T, Suzuki N, Hebelka H, Gaulitz A (2009) The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur Spine J 18:679–686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilbert JW, Martin JC, Wheeler GR et al (2011) Lumbar stenosis rates in symptomatic patients using weight bearing and recumbent magnetic resonance imaging. J Manip Physiol Ther 34(8):557–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ogikubo O, Forsberg L, Hansson T (2007) The relationship between the cross sectional area of the cauda equine and the preoperative symptoms in central lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 32:1423–1428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Schepper EIT, Overdevest GM, Suri P et al (2013) Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. An updated systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine 38:E469–E481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geisser ME, Haig AJ, Tong HC et al (2007) Spinal canal size and clinical symptoms among persons diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin J Pain 23:780–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sirvanci M, Bhatia M, Ganiyusufoglu KA et al (2008) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry disability index and MR imaging. Eur Spine J 17:679–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sigmudsson FG, Kang XP, Jonsson B et al (2011) Correlation between disability and MRI findings in lumbar spinal stenosis. A prospective study of 109 patients operated on by decompression. Acta Orthop 82:204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeifang F, Schiltenwolf M, Abel R et al (2008) Gait analysis does not correlate with clinical and MR imaging parameters in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:89CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Willen J, Danielson B (2001) The diagnostic effect from axial loading of the lumbar spine during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with degenerative disorders. Spine 26:2607–2614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madsen R, Jensen TS, Pope M et al (2008) The effect of body position and axial load on spinal canal morphology. An MRI Study of central spinal stenosis. Spine 33:61–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanno H, Ozawa H, Koizumi Y et al (2012) Dynamic change of dural sac cross sectional area in axial loaded MRI correlates with the severity of clinical symptoms in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 37:207–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanno H, Ozawa H, Koizumi Y et al (2015) Changes in lumbar spondylolisthesis on axial-loaded MRI: do they reproduce the positional changes in the degree of olisthesis observed on X-ray images in the standing position? Spine J 15(6):1255–1262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alya F, Connell D, Saifuddin A (2008) Upright positional MRI of the lumbar spine. Clin Radiol 63:1035–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeng C, Xiong J, Wang JC et al (2016) The evaluation and observation of “Hidden” hypertrophy of cervical ligamentum flavum, cervical canal and related factors using kinetic magnetic resonance imaging. Global Spine J 6(2):155–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mauch F, Jung C, Huth J et al (2010) Changes in the lumbar spine of athletes from supine to the true standing position in magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 35:1002–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wildermuth S, Zanetti M, Duewell S et al (1998) Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright, flexion and extension) MRI imaging and myelography. Radiology 207:391–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmid MR, Stucki G, Duewell S et al (1999) Changes in cross-sectional measurements of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramina as a function of body position: in vivo studies of an open-configuration MR system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1095–1102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ren Z, Liu A, Yang K et al (2017) Evaluation of changes in lumbar neuroforaminal dimensions in symptomatic young adults using positional MRI. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-4953-6 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF et al (2008) Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res 31(2):165–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lue YJ, Hsieh CL, Huang MH et al (2008) Development of a Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1. Spine 33(21):2354–2360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luo X, George ML, Kakouras I et al (2003) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the short form 12-item survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain. Spine 28(15):1739–1745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yao M, Wang Q, Li Z et al (2016) A Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptation of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 41(24):14470–14478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guilfoyle MR, Seeley H, Laing RJ (2009) The Short Form 36 health survey in spine disease- validation against condition- specific measures. Br J Neurosurg 23(4):401–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tomkins CC, Battie MC, Rogers T et al (2009) A criterion measure of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis and its comparison with a treadmill protocol. Spine 34:2444–2449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bostelmann R, Schneller S, Cornelius JF et al (2016) A new possibility to assess the perioperative walking capacity using a global positioning system in neurosurgical spine patients: a feasibility study. Eur Spine J 25(3):963–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yair B, Noam S, Meir L et al (2011) Assessing the outcomes of spine surgery using global positioning systems. Spine 36(4):E263–E267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rainville J, Childs LA, Pena EB et al (2012) Quantification of walking ability in subjects with neurogenic claudication from lumbar spinal stenosis—a comparative study. Spine J 12:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tomkins-Lane CC, Battie MC (2010) Validity and reproducibility of self-report measures of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 35:2097–2102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6(4):284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kettler A, Wilke HJ (2006) Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration. Eur Spine J 15(6):705–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Evans JD (1996) Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks and Cole Publishing Co, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schonstrom N, Hansson T (1988) Pressure changes following constriction of the cauda equina. An experimental study in vitro. Spine 4:385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Blau WS, Arora S, Dogra S (1997) Measurements of epidural pressures that occur during walking in patients with or without spinal stenosis. Spine 22:1045–1046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Patrick DL et al (1996) The Quebec Task Force classification for Spinal Disorders and the severity, treatment, and outcomes of sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:2885–2892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB et al (1996) The Maine Lumbar Spine Study: III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:1787–1794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sato K, Kikuchi S (1997) Clinical analysis of two-level compression of the cauda equina and the nerve roots in lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 22:1898–1903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yukawa Y, Lenke LG, Tenhula J et al (2002) A comprehensive study of patients with surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 84:1954–1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Park DK, Howard SA, Lurie JD et al (2010) Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poor outcomes? A subanalysis of the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) lumbar stenosis study. Spine 35:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim YU, Kong YG, Lee J et al (2015) Clinical symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis associated with morphological parameters on magnetic resonance images. Eur Spine J 24:2236–2243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee RK, Griffith JF, Lau YY et al (2015) Diagnostic capability of low- versus high-field magnetic resonance imaging for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine 40(6):382–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yvonne Yan On Lau
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ryan Ka Lok Lee
    • 2
  • James Francis Griffith
    • 2
  • Carol Lai Yee Chan
    • 1
  • Sheung Wai Law
    • 1
  • Kin On Kwok
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Prince of Wales HospitalThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales HospitalThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyTseung Kwan O HospitalHang HauHong Kong

Personalised recommendations