Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis patients after decompression surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sign for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). It is included in the assessment of LSS to help determine whether decompression surgery is indicated. Assessment of the reversibility of the SedSign after surgery may also have clinical implications for the decision about whether or not a secondary operation or revision is needed. This study investigated if lumbar decompression leads to a reversal of the SedSign in patients with LSS and a positive SedSign pre-operatively; and if a reversal is associated with more favourable clinical outcomes. If reversal of the SedSign is usual after sufficient decompression surgery, a new positive SedSign could be used as an indicator of new stenosis in previously operated patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of 30 LSS patients with a positive pre-operative SedSign undergoing decompression surgery with or without instrumented fusion was undertaken to assess the presence of nerve root sedimentation (=negative SedSign) on MRI at 3 months post-operation. Functional limitation (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), back and leg pain (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), and treadmill walking distance were also compared pre- and 3 months post-operatively. The short follow-up period was chosen to exclude adjacent segment disease and the potential influence of surgical technique on clinical outcomes at longer follow-up times.

Results

30 patients [median age 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 65–79), 16 males] showed a median pre-operative ODI of 66 (IQR 52–78), a median VAS of 8 (IQR 7–9), and a median walking distance of 0 m (IQR 0–100). Three months post-operation 27 patients had a negative SedSign. In this group, we found improved clinical outcomes at follow-up: median post-operative ODI of 21 (IQR 12–26), median VAS of 2 (IQR 2–4), and median walking distance of 1000 m (IQR 500–1000). These changes were all statistically significant (p < 0.001). Three patients had a positive SedSign at 3-month follow-up due to epidural fat (n = 2) or a dural cyst following an intra-operative dural tear (n = 1), but also showed improvements in clinical outcomes for ODI, VAS and walking distance.

Conclusion

The reversibility of a pre-operative positive SedSign was demonstrated after decompression of the affected segmental level and associated with an improved clinical outcome. A persisting positive SedSign could be the result of incomplete decompression or surgical complications. A new positive SedSign after sufficient decompression surgery could be used as an indicator of new stenosis in previously operated patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verbiest H (1954) A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Jt Surg Br 36-B(2):230–237

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Deyo RA et al (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(12):1441–1445 discussion 1446–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aizawa T et al (2015) Reoperation rates after fenestration for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a 20-year period survival function method analysis. Eur Spine J 24(2):381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Modhia U et al (2013) Readmission rates after decompression surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis among medicare beneficiaries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(7):591–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Forsth P et al (2016) A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 374(15):1413–1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghogawala Z et al (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374(15):1424–1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barz T et al (2010) Nerve root sedimentation sign: evaluation of a new radiological sign in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(8):892–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barz T et al (2014) Clinical validity of the nerve root sedimentation sign in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 14(4):667–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weber C et al (2016) Is there an association between radiological severity of lumbar spinal stenosis and disability, pain, or surgical outcome? A multicenter observational study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(2):E78–E83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moses RA et al (2015) Is the sedimentation sign associated with spinal stenosis surgical treatment effect in SPORT? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(3):129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Macedo LG, Wang Y, Battie MC (2013) The sedimentation sign for differential diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(10):827–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang L et al (2015) Diagnostic value of the nerve root sedimentation sign, a radiological sign using magnetic resonance imaging, for detecting lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis. Skelet Radiol 44(4):519–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schizas C et al (2010) Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(21):1919–1924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lonne G et al (2014) MRI evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis: is a rapid visual assessment as good as area measurement? Eur Spine J 23(6):1320–1324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakai Y et al (2017) Clinical outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis based on new classification according to hypertrophied ligamentum flavum. J Orthop Sci 22(1):27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fairbank JC et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt JD et al (1976) Chemotherapy of advanced prostatic cancer. Evaluation of response parameters. Urology 7(6):602–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barz T et al (2008) The diagnostic value of a treadmill test in predicting lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 17(5):686–690

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Deyo RA et al (2013) Complications after surgery for lumbar stenosis in a veteran population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(19):1695–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Booth KC et al (1999) Minimum 5-year results of degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and instrumented posterior fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(16):1721–1727

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tomkins-Lane CC et al (2013) Nerve root sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(24):E1554–E1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Melloh M et al (2013) Is the positive nerve root sedimentation sign in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis reversible after decompression surgery? The International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Annual Meeting, Scottsdale, AZ, 13th–17th May 2013

  24. Barz T et al (2014) Increased intraoperative epidural pressure in lumbar spinal stenosis patients with a positive nerve root sedimentation sign. Eur Spine J 23(5):985–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Laitt R, Jackson A, Isherwood I (1996) Patterns of chronic adhesive arachnoiditis following Myodil myelography: the significance of spinal canal stenosis and previous surgery. Br J Radiol 69(824):693–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim NH, Yang IH (1996) A study of motor and sensory evoked potentials in chronic cauda equina compression of the dog. Eur Spine J 5(5):338–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerling MC et al (2016) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for lumbar stenosis: a subanalysis of the 8 year data from the SPORT trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(10):901–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leonardi MA et al (2010) Early postoperative MRI in detecting hematoma and dural compression after lumbar spinal decompression: prospective study of asymptomatic patients in comparison to patients requiring surgical revision. Eur Spine J 19(12):2216–2222

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Oba H et al (2013) Study of dural sac cross-sectional area in early and late phases after lumbar decompression surgery. Spine J 13(9):1088–1094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kao FC et al (2015) Symptomatic epidural hematoma after lumbar decompression surgery. Eur Spine J 24(2):348–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shimizu T et al (2016) A multi-center study of reoperations within 30 days of spine surgery. Eur Spine J 25(3):828–835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Munting E et al (2015) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 24(2):358–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wells AJ et al (2014) Lumbosacral epidural lipomatosis causing rapid onset cauda equina syndrome. J Clin Neurosci 21(7):1262–1263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang L et al (2016) The nerve root sedimentation sign for differential diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective, consecutive cohort study. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4435-2

  35. de Schepper EI et al (2013) Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(8):E469–E481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Andreisek G et al (2014) Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis—an initiative for structured reporting. Eur Radiol 24(12):3224–3232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tomkins-Lane C et al (2016) Consensus on the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: results of an international Delphi study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical Faculty, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

    Christian Barz & Harry R. Merk

  2. Institute for Health Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland

    Markus Melloh

  3. Centre for Medical Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Markus Melloh

  4. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Lukas P. Staub

  5. The School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia

    Sarah J. Lord

  6. The NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Sarah J. Lord

  7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asklepios Klinikum Uckermark, Auguststr. 23, 16303, Schwedt, Germany

    Thomas Barz

Authors
  1. Christian Barz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Melloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lukas P. Staub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah J. Lord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Harry R. Merk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Barz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Barz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barz, C., Melloh, M., Staub, L.P. et al. Reversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis patients after decompression surgery. Eur Spine J 26, 2573–2580 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4962-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4962-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation