Qualitative Grading of Severity of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Based on the Morphology of the Dural Sac on Magnetic Resonance Images

Study Design. Retrospective radiologic study on a prospective patient cohort. Objective. To devise a qualitative grading of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), study its reliability and clinical relevance. Summary of Background Data. Radiologic stenosis is assessed commonly by measuring dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA). Great variation is observed though in surfaces recorded between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Methods. We describe a 7-grade classification based on the morphology of the dural sac as observed on T2 axial magnetic resonance images based on the rootlet/cerebrospinal fluid ratio. Grades A and B show cerebrospinal fluid presence while grades C and D show none at all. The grading was applied to magnetic resonance images of 95 subjects divided in 3 groups as follows: 37 symptomatic LSS surgically treated patients; 31 symptomatic LSS conservatively treated patients (average follow-up, 2.5 and 3.1 years); and 27 low back pain (LBP) sufferers. DSCA was also digitally measured. We studied intra- and interobserver reliability, distribution of grades, relation between morphologic grading and DSCA, as well relation between grades, DSCA, and Oswestry Disability Index. Results. Average intra- and interobserver agreement was substantial and moderate, respectively (k = 0.65 and 0.44), whereas they were substantial for physicians working in the study originating unit. Surgical patients had the smallest DSCA. A larger proportion of C and D grades was observed in the surgical group. Surface measurements resulted in overdiagnosis of stenosis in 35 patients and under diagnosis in 12. No relation could be found between stenosis grade or DSCA and baseline Oswestry Disability Index or surgical result. C and D grade patients were more likely to fail conservative treatment, whereas grades A and B were less likely to warrant surgery. Conclusion. The grading defines stenosis in different subjects than surface measurements alone. Since it mainly considers impingement of neural tissue it might be a more appropriate clinical and research tool as well as carrying a prognostic value.

[1]  L. Dai,et al.  Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability in the Load Sharing Classification of the Assessment of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures , 2005, Spine.

[2]  C. K. Lee,et al.  Lateral Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: Classification, Pathologic Anatomy and Surgical Decompression , 1988, Spine.

[3]  J. Fairbank,et al.  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 , 2002, Spine.

[4]  A. Mark,et al.  Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  K. Tallroth,et al.  Comparison of Radiologic Signs and Clinical Symptoms of Spinal Stenosis , 2006, Spine.

[6]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  A Prospective and Consecutive Study of Surgically Treated Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Part I: Clinical Features Related to Radiographic Findings , 1997, Spine.

[7]  C. Hamanishi,et al.  Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. , 1994, Journal of spinal disorders.

[8]  T. Hansson,et al.  Dynamic changes in the dimensions of the lumbar spinal canal: An experimental study in vitro , 1989, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[9]  Mitchel B Harris,et al.  Assessment of two thoracolumbar fracture classification systems as used by multiple surgeons. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  M. Tezer,et al.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR Imaging , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[11]  M. Hasue,et al.  Lumbar spinal stenosis , 1977, International Orthopaedics.

[12]  J. Katz,et al.  Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  K. Tallroth,et al.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of long-term outcome 12 years after operative and conservative treatment. , 1998, Journal of spinal disorders.

[14]  J. Wilmink,et al.  Posture-dependent Bilateral Compression of L4 or L5 Nerve Roots in Facet Hypertrophy: A Dynamic CT-myelographic Study , 1987, Spine.

[15]  M. Abdelnoor,et al.  Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Clinical and Radiologic Features , 1995 .

[16]  M. Liang,et al.  Measurement Properties of a Self‐Administered Outcome Measure in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 1996, Spine.

[17]  James N Weinstein,et al.  Reliability of Readings of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 2008, Spine.

[18]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[19]  Robert Gunzburg,et al.  Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Nicholas,et al.  Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  M. Bhandari,et al.  Reliability in grading the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2000, Journal of spinal disorders.

[22]  Alpesh A. Patel,et al.  The Adoption of a New Classification System: Time-Dependent Variation in Interobserver Reliability of the Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score Classification System , 2007, Spine.

[23]  A. Mannion,et al.  The patient’s perspective on complications after spine surgery , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[24]  C. Laurencin,et al.  The stenosis ratio: a new tool for the diagnosis of degenerative spinal stenosis. , 1999, International journal of surgical investigation.