##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

Сcomputed tomography (CT) is widely used in the diagnosis of degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine, but the relationship between clinical manifestations of lumbar stenosis and its anatomical prerequisites has not been sufficiently studied to date. The objective: to determine the significance of the morphometric parameters of lumbar stenosis according to CT scans and to establish their relationship with the prevailing symptoms of the disease. Material and methods. Seventy-five consecutive patients with clinically significant lumbar stenosis who underwent CT scan before surgery were enrolled in this study. The average values of thirteen different morphometric parameters were calculated at LIII–SI levels of the intervertebral discs and of the pedicels in the axial and sagittal views. The possibility of classification of clinical observations and the correlation of morphometric parameters with the clinical forms of lumbar stenosis were investigated using discriminant and logistic regression analysis. Results CT scan with high probability allocates patients with predominant symptoms of neurogenic claudication or bilateral radiculopathy. The most significant morphometric predictors of this clinical group are the depth of the lateral recesses and the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal. Conclusion CT scan significantly expands the informative value of magnetic resonance imaging and can be used in planning the decompressive stage of the surgery intervention in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Keywords

Degenerative Process Computed Tomography Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Cross-Sectional Area

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Turgunaliyev Khusniddin, Ablyazov A.A, & Zulunov Azizbek. (2022). Possibilities of CT in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Texas Journal of Medical Science, 14, 123–125. https://doi.org/10.62480/tjms.2022.vol14.pp123-125

References

  1. Deyo R.A., Ciol M.A., Cherkin D.C., Loeser J.D., Bigos S.J. Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine. 1993; 18 (11): 1463–1470.
  2. Kalichman L., Cole R., Kim D.H., Li L., Suri P., Guermazi A., Hunter D.J. Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. Spine J. 2010; 10 (9): S34–S35. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.005.
  3. Kent D.L., Haynor D.R., Larson E.B., Deyo R.A. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults: a metaanalysis of the accuracy of CT, MR, and myelography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1992; 158 (5): 1135–1144.
  4. Yagci I., Gunduz O.H., Ekinci G., Diracoglu D., Us O., Akyuz G. The utility of lumbar paraspinal mapping in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Am. J. Phys. Medicine
  5. & Rehabilitation. 2009; 88 (10): 843–851. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181b333a9.
  6. Singh K., Samartzis D., Vaccaro A.R., Nassr A., Andersson G.B., Yoon S.T., Phillips F.M., Goldberg E.J., An H.S. Congenital lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched,cohort radiographic analysis. Spine J. 2005; 5 (6): 615–622. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.05.385.
  7. Mlyavykh S., Ludwig S.C., Mobasser J.P., Kepler C.K., Anderson D.G. Twelve-month results of a clinical pilot study utilizing pedicle-lengthening osteotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Clinical article.
  8. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2013; 18 (4): 347–355. DOI: 10.3171/2012.11.SPINE12402.
  9. Malmivaara A., Slätis P., Heliövaara M., Sainio P., Kinnunen H., Kankare J., Dalin-Hirvonen N., Seitsalo S., Herno A., Kortekangas P., Niinimäki T. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007; 32 (1): 1–8. DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d.
  10. Lurie J.D., Tosteson A.N., Tosteson T.D., Carragee E.,
  11. Carrino J., Kaiser J., Sequeiros R.T., Lecomte A.R.