Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 03 August 2017

This article has been updated

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.

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

Change history

  • 03 August 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

References

  1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F et al (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 20:1178–1186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. White A III, Panjabi M (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  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–E140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):61–67

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:679–686

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):557–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 32:1423–1428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–E481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:780–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:679–685

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 82:204–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 9:89

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 26:2607–2614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 33:61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 37:207–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1255–1262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alya F, Connell D, Saifuddin A (2008) Upright positional MRI of the lumbar spine. Clin Radiol 63:1035–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):155–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 35:1002–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 207:391–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 172:1095–1102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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):165–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2354–2360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1739–1745

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):14470–14478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):401–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 34:2444–2449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):963–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yair B, Noam S, Meir L et al (2011) Assessing the outcomes of spine surgery using global positioning systems. Spine 36(4):E263–E267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:101–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tomkins-Lane CC, Battie MC (2010) Validity and reproducibility of self-report measures of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 35:2097–2102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6(4):284–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):705–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Evans JD (1996) Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks and Cole Publishing Co, Pacific Grove

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schonstrom N, Hansson T (1988) Pressure changes following constriction of the cauda equina. An experimental study in vitro. Spine 4:385–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Blau WS, Arora S, Dogra S (1997) Measurements of epidural pressures that occur during walking in patients with or without spinal stenosis. Spine 22:1045–1046

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:2885–2892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:1787–1794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:1898–1903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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) 84:1954–1959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 35:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 24:2236–2243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):382–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    Yvonne Yan On Lau, Carol Lai Yee Chan, Sheung Wai Law & Kin On Kwok

  2. Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    Ryan Ka Lok Lee & James Francis Griffith

  3. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tseung Kwan O Hospital, Hang Hau, Hong Kong

    Yvonne Yan On Lau

Authors
  1. Yvonne Yan On Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan Ka Lok Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Francis Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carol Lai Yee Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sheung Wai Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kin On Kwok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvonne Yan On Lau.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised.

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5237-x.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lau, Y.Y.O., Lee, R.K.L., Griffith, J.F. et al. Changes in dural sac caliber with standing MRI improve correlation with symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 26, 2666–2675 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5211-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5211-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation