Abstract
Objective
To introduce a new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis, evaluate its reliabilities, and compare it to the cross-sectional area and anterior-posterior diameter of the dural sac.
Materials and methods
Lumbar central canal stenosis is defined as obliteration of the anterior CSF space in front of the cauda equina. Four musculoskeletal radiologists independently graded lumbar central canal stenosis by this new grading system based on separation degree of the cauda equina on T2-weighted axial images (grade 0 = no lumbar stenosis without obliteration of anterior CSF space; grade 1 = mild stenosis with separation of all cauda equina; grade 2 = moderate stenosis with some cauda equina aggregated; and grade 3 = severe stenosis with none of the cauda equina separated) in 81 patients to determine inter- and intra-reader reliability. One radiologist measured cross-sectional areas and anterior-posterior diameters and compared these to lumbar central canal stenosis grades.
Results
Inter-reader reliabilities were substantial to almost perfect (ICC reliability = 0.730–0.953). Intra-reader reliability was almost perfect (kappa value = 0.863–0.900). Cross-sectional areas and anterior-posterior diameters were different according to grades at all levels (p = 0.000–0.049), except between grades 2 and 3 of L2-3. At L5-S1, only anterior-posterior diameter was different between grades 0 and 1 (p = 0.005) and between grades 0 and 2 (p = 0.022).
Conclusions
This new grading system may be helpful to clinicians for simple and practical evaluation of lumbar central canal stenosis and for communicating with each other.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Kreuer W. Low back pain hospitalization: recent US trends and regional variation. Spine. 1994;19:1207–12.
Markman JD, Gaud KG. Lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults: current understanding and future directions. Clin Geriatr Med. 2008;24:369–88.
Ullrich CG, Binet EF, Sanechi MG, Kieffer SA. Quantitative assessment of the lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography. Radiology. 1980;134:137–43.
Kornberg M, Rechtine GR. Quantitative assessment of the fifth lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography in symptomatic L4-L5 disc disease. Spine. 1985;10:328–30.
Bolender MF, Schonstrom NS, Spengler DM. Role of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of central spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:240–6.
Karantanas AH, Zibis AH, Papaliaga M, Georgiou E, Rousogiannis S. Dimensions of the lumbar spinal canal: variations and correlations with somatometric parameters using CT. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:1581–5.
Lohman CM, Tallroth K, Kettunen JA, Lindgren KA. Comparison of radiologic signs and clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis. Spine. 2006;31:1834–40.
Zheng F, Farmer JC, Sandhu HS, O’Leary PF. A novel method for the quantitative evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis. HSS J. 2006;2:136–40.
Athiviraham A, Yen D, Scott C, Soboleski D. Clinical correlation of radiologic spinal stenosis after standardization for vertebral body size. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:776–80.
Rapala K, Chaberek S, Truszczynska A, Lukawski S, Walczak P. Digital computed tomography affords new measurement possibilities in lumbar stenosis. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2009;11:13–26.
Modic MT, Masaryk T, Boumphrey F, Goormastic M, Bell G. Lumbar herniated disc disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT and myelography. AJR. 1986;147:757–65.
Hamanish C, Matukura N, Fukita M, Tomihara M, Tanaka S. Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord. 1994;7:388–93.
Laurencin CT, Lipson SJ, Senatus P, et al. The stenosis ratio: a new tool for the diagnosis of degenerative spinal stenosis. Int J Surg Investig. 1999;1:127–31.
Ogikubo O, Forsberg L, Hansson T. The relationship between the cross-sectional area of the cauda equina and the preoperative symptoms in central lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 2007;32:1423–8.
Sirvanci M, Bhatia M, Ganiyusufoglu KA, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR imaging. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:679–85.
Speciale AC, Pietrobone R, Urban CW, et al. Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area. Spine. 2002;27:1082–6.
Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal LF, HJ AM, Magnaes B. Lumbar spinal stenosis: Clinical and radiologic features. Spine. 1995;20:1178–86.
Boden SD, McCown PR, Davis DO, Dina TS, Mark AS, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1178–84.
Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Lumbar spinal fusion: A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine. 1993;18:1463–70.
Herron LD, Manglesdorf C. Lumbar spinal stenosis: Results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4:26–33.
Uden A, Johnsson KE, Jonsson K, Pettersson H. Myelography in the elderly and the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Spine. 1985;10:171–4.
Weir B, DeLeo R. Lumbar stenosis. Analysis of factors affecting outcome in 81 surgical cases. Can J Neurol Sci. 1981;8:295–8.
Verbiest H. Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal: A review of twenty-seven years' experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1977;59:181–8.
Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, Stromqvist B. A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: clinical features related to radiographic findings. Spine. 1997;22:2932–7.
Chiodo A, Haig AJ, Yamakawa KS, Quint D, Tong H, Choksi VR. Magnetic resonance imaging vs. electrodiagnostic root compromise in lumbar spinal stenosis: a masked controlled study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87:789–97.
Chiodo A, Haig AJ, Yamakawa KS, Quint D, Tong H, Choksi VR. Magnetic resonance imaging vs. electrodiagnostic root compromise in lumbar spinal stenosis: a masked controlled study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87:789–79726.
Song KS, Jang EC, Jung HJ, Kim KW, Yu H. Observer variability in the evaluation of multiple lumbar stenosis by routine MR-myelography and MRI. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21569–574.
Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, et al. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine. 2010;35:1919–24.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1153-z
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guen, Y.L., Joon, W.L., Hee, S.C. et al. A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method. Skeletal Radiol 40, 1033–1039 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1102-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1102-x