Dynamic Changes in the Dural Sac Cross-Sectional Area on Axial Loaded MR Imaging: Is There a Difference between Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis?

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Ogikubo O,
   2. Forsberg L,
   3. Hansson T

   . The relationship between the cross-sectional area of the cauda equina and the preoperative symptoms in central lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1423–28
2. 2.↵
   1. Hamanishi C,
   2. Matukura N,
   3. Fujita M,
   4. et al

   . Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord Tech 1994;7:388–93
3. 3.↵
   1. Danielson BI,
   2. Willén J,
   3. Gaulitz A,
   4. et al

   . Axial loading of the spine during CT and MR in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Radiol 1998;39:604–11

   PubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Willén J,
   2. Danielson B,
   3. Gaulitz A,
   4. et al

   . Dynamic effects on the lumbar spinal canal: axially loaded CT-myelography and MRI in patients with sciatica and/or neurogenic claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2968–76
5. 5.↵
   1. Sirvanci M,
   2. Bhatia M,
   3. Ganiyusufoglu KA,
   4. et al

   . Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR imaging. Eur Spine J 2008;17:679–85. Epub 2008 Mar 7

   PubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Hansson T,
   2. Suzuki N,
   3. Hebelka H,
   4. et al

   . The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur Spine J 2009;18:679–86

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Schönström N,
   2. Bolender NF,
   3. Spengler DM,
   4. et al

   . Pressure changes within the cauda equina following constriction of the dural sac: an in vitro experimental study. Spine 1984;9:604–07

   PubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Bolender NF,
   2. Schonstrom NS,
   3. Spengler DM

   . Role of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of central spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985;67:240–46

   PubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Kanno H,
   2. Endo T,
   3. Ozawa H,
   4. et al

   . Axial loading during magnetic resonance imaging in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis: does it reproduce the positional change of the dural sac detected by upright myelography? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 Jan 20. [Epub ahead of print]
10. 10.↵
    1. Willén J,
    2. Danielson B

    . The diagnostic effect from axial loading of the lumbar spine during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with degenerative disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2607–14
11. 11.↵
    1. Kanno H,
    2. Ozawa H,
    3. Koizumi Y,
    4. et al

    . 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2011 Feb 4. [Epub ahead of print]
12. 12.↵
    1. Hiwatashi A,
    2. Danielson B,
    3. Moritani T,
    4. et al

    . Axial loading during MR imaging can influence treatment decision for symptomatic spinal stenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:170–74

    PubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Willén J,
    2. Wessberg PJ,
    3. Danielsson B

    . Surgical results in hidden lumbar spinal stenosis detected by axial loaded computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: an outcome study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:E109–15
14. 14.↵
    1. Verbiest H

    . A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1954;36-B:230–37

    PubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Junghanns H

    . Spondylolisthesen ohne Spalt in Zwischengelenkstueck. Archiv fur Orthopadische Unfallchirurgie 1930;29:118–27
16. 16.↵
    1. Sengupta DK,
    2. Herkowitz HN

    . Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:S71–81
17. 17.↵
    1. Arnoldi CC,
    2. Brodsky AE,
    3. Cauchoix J,
    4. et al

    . Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes: definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976:4–5
18. 18.↵
    1. Pearson A,
    2. Blood E,
    3. Lurie J,
    4. et al

    . Degenerative spondylolisthesis versus spinal stenosis: does a slip matter? Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:298–305
19. 19.↵
    1. Cummins J,
    2. Lurie JD,
    3. Tosteson TD,
    4. et al

    . Descriptive epidemiology and prior healthcare utilization of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial's (SPORT) three observational cohorts: disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:806–14
20. 20.↵
    1. Tosteson AN,
    2. Lurie JD,
    3. Tosteson TD,
    4. et al

    . Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:845–53

    PubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Turner JA,
    2. Ersek M,
    3. Herron L,
    4. et al

    . Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992;17:1–8
22. 22.↵
    1. Atlas SJ,
    2. Keller RB,
    3. Robson D,
    4. et al

    . Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:556–62
23. 23.↵
    1. Atlas SJ,
    2. Keller RB,
    3. Wu YA,
    4. et al

    . Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:936–43

    PubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Malmivaara A,
    2. Slatis P,
    3. Heliovaara M,
    4. et al

    . Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1–8
25. 25.↵
    1. Katz JN,
    2. Lipson SJ,
    3. Brick GW,
    4. et al

    . Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1155–60

    PubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Katz JN,
    2. Stucki G,
    3. Lipson SJ,
    4. et al

    . Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:2229–33
27. 27.↵
    1. Lohman CM,
    2. Tallroth K,
    3. Kettunen JA,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of radiologic signs and clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1834–40
28. 28.↵
    1. Madsen R,
    2. Jensen TS,
    3. Pope M,
    4. et al

    . The effect of body position and axial load on spinal canal morphology: an MRI study of central spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:61–67
29. 29.↵
    1. Huang KY,
    2. Lin RM,
    3. Lee YL,
    4. et al

    . Factors affecting disability and physical function in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4–5: evaluation with axially loaded MRI. Eur Spine J 2009;18:1851–57

    PubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Suzuki H,
    2. Endo K,
    3. Kobayashi H,
    4. et al

    . Total sagittal spinal alignment in patients with lumbar canal stenosis accompanied by intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:e344–46
31. 31.↵
    1. Sato K,
    2. Kikuchi S

    . Clinical analysis of two-level compression of the cauda equina and the nerve roots in lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:1898–903, discussion 904
32. 32.↵
    1. Danielson B,
    2. Willén J

    . Axially loaded magnetic resonance image of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2601–06
33. 33.↵
    1. White A III.,
    2. Panjabi M

    eds. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1990
34. 34.↵
    1. Vogt MT,
    2. Rubin DA,
    3. San Valentin R,
    4. et al

    . Degenerative lumbar listhesis and bone mineral density in elderly women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:2536–41
35. 35.↵
    1. Vogt MT,
    2. Rubin D,
    3. Valentin RS,
    4. et al

    . Lumbar olisthesis and lower back symptoms in elderly white women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:2640–47
36. 36.↵
    1. Brantigan JW,
    2. Neidre A

    . Achievement of normal sagittal plane alignment using a wedged carbon fiber reinforced polymer fusion cage in treatment of spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2003;3:186–96

    PubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Ghogawala Z,
    2. Benzel EC,
    3. Amin-Hanjani S,
    4. et al

    . Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2004;1:267–72

    PubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Dewitte K,
    2. Fierens C,
    3. Stockl D,
    4. et al

    . Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem 2002;48:799–801, author reply 801–02

    PubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Bland JM,
    2. Altman DG

    . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10

    PubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. Ahn TJ,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Choi G,
    4. et al

    . Effect of intervertebral disk degeneration on spinal stenosis during magnetic resonance imaging with axial loading. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2009;49:242–47, discussion 47

    PubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Moon ES,
    2. Kim HS,
    3. Park JO,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of the predictive value of myelography, computed tomography and MRI on the treadmill test in lumbar spinal stenosis. Yonsei Med J 2005;46:806–11

    PubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Zeifang F,
    2. Schiltenwolf M,
    3. Abel R,
    4. et al

    . Gait analysis does not correlate with clinical and MR imaging parameters in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:89

    PubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Manenti G,
    2. Liccardo G,
    3. Sergiacomi G,
    4. et al

    . Axial loading MRI of the lumbar spine. In Vivo 2003;17:413–20

    PubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Jayakumar P,
    2. Nnadi C,
    3. Saifuddin A,
    4. et al

    . Dynamic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: diagnosis with axial loaded magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:E298–301
45. 45.↵
    1. Ben-Galim P,
    2. Reitman CA

    . The distended facet sign: an indicator of position-dependent spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2007;7:245–48

    PubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Weishaupt D,
    2. Schmid MR,
    3. Zanetti M,
    4. et al

    . Positional MR imaging of the lumbar spine: does it demonstrate nerve root compromise not visible at conventional MR imaging? Radiology 2000;215:247–53
47. 47.↵
    1. Zamani AA,
    2. Moriarty T,
    3. Hsu L,
    4. et al

    . Functional MRI of the lumbar spine in erect position in a superconducting open-configuration MR system: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998;8:1329–33

    PubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Oğuz H,
    2. Levendoğlu F,
    3. Oğün TC,
    4. et al

    . Loading is more effective than posture in lumbar spinal stenosis: a study with a treadmill equipment. Eur Spine J 2007;16:913–18

    PubMed