Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlations between sedimentation sign, dural sac cross-sectional area, and clinical symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

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

Abstract

Purpose

In this study, we addressed the correlation between the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac and the nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign) and the correlation between the distance of claudication and the CSA of the dural sac or SedSign in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. We also evaluated the reliability of clinical symptom prediction.

Methods

We checked claudication distance using a questionnaire, and we gauged low back pain when standing, referred pain, and radiating pain using visual analog scale scores. Three observers measured the CSA of the dural sac and SedSign, and normal nerve root sedimentation was classified as negative (N) and the absence of nerve root sedimentation was positive (P). P was sub-classified as positive with room [P(+); empty space apparent in the dura] or positive without room [P(−); no empty space in the dura]. SedSign reflected ongoing sedimentation inside the spinal canal of the nerve roots. We demonstrated negative sedimentation for the nerve root except for exiting nerve roots that settled into more than half of the dorsal region of the spinal canal and positive sedimentation as compressed nerve roots or as distribution of nerve roots that conglomerated from the ventral to the dorsal part of the equator as nerve roots. We evaluated functional outcomes using the Oswestry Disability Index and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. One-way ANOVAs, Chi square tests, and correlation analyses evaluated the correlation CSAs and SedSigns.

Results

The total CSAs for the 716 sites were 98.63 ± 34.38 for N, 76.78 ± 28.78 for P(+), and 55.43 ± 27.77 for P(−), which were all statistically significant (p = 0.01). The correlations between pain and SedSign were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). There was no statistical significance in the correlations between the distance of the claudication and the CSA of the dura sac and the SedSign and between the functional score and the SedSign (both p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Increasing severity of SedSign indicates progressively smaller dural sac CSA, but there is an inconsistent association with clinical symptoms. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that spinal stenosis is severe in patients with severe symptoms.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25:556–562

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Resende VAC, Teixeira A, Silva JBd, Neto AC, Leal FJF, Gouveia ARF, Miranda A (2013) Lumbar spinal stenosis: sedimentation sign. Columna 12:192–195. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-18512013000300003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Macedo LG, Wang Y, Battié MC (2013) Sedimentation sign for differential diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 38:827–831. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827e8ecd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30:936–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fritz JM, Erhard RE, Delitto A, Welch WC, Nowakowski PE (1997) Preliminary results of the use of a two-stage treadmill test as a clinical diagnostic tool in the differential diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 10:410–416

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kapural L, Mekhail N, Bena J, McLain R, Tetzlaff J, Kapural M, Mekhail M, Polk S (2007) Value of the magnetic resonance imaging in patients with painful lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injections. Clin J Pain 23:571–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Genevay S, Atlas SJ, Katz JN (2010) Variation in eligibility criteria from studies of radiculopathy due to a herniated disc and of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis: a structured literature review. Spine 35:803–811. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bc9454

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V, Saari T, Suomlainen O (1997) Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:2278–2282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Attias N, Hayman A, Hipp JA, Noble P, Essess SI (2006) Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lumbar spine foraminal stenosis—a surgeon’s perspective. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:249–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haig AJ, Geisser ME, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS, Quint DJ, Hoff JT, Chiodo A, Miner JA, Phalke W (2007) Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low back pain, and no back symptoms. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:358–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Speciale AC, Pietrobon R, Urban CW, Richardson WJ, Helms CA, Major N, Enterline D, Hey L, Haglund M, Turner DA (2002) Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area. Spine 27:1082–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Barz T, Melloh M, Staub LP, Lord SJ, Lange J, Röder CP, Theis JC, Merk HR (2010) Nerve root sedimentation sign: evaluation of a new radiological sign in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 35:892–897. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c7cf4b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fazal A, Yoo A, Bendo JA (2013) Does the presence of the nerve root sedimentation sign on MRI correlate with the operative level in patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression for lumbar stenosis? Spine J 13:837–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee SY, Kim TH, Oh JK, Lee SJ, Park MS (2015) Lumbar stenosis: a recent update by review of literature. Asian Spine J 9:818–828. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.818

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamanishi C, Matukura N, Fujita M, Tomihara M, Tanaka S (1994) Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord Tech 7:388–393

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Carragee E, Carrino JA, Kaiser J, Sequeiros RT, Lecomte AR, Grove MR, Blood EA, Pearson LH, Weinstein JN, Herzog R (2008) Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 33:1605–1610. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181791af3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sigmundsson FG, Kang XP, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B (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. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566150

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Geisser ME, Haig AJ, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS, Quint DJ, Hoff JT, Miner JA, Phalke W (2007) Spinal canal size and clinical symptoms among persons diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin J Pain 23:780–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Herno A, Partanen K, Talaslahti T, Kaukanen E, Turunen V, Suomalainen O, Airaksinen O (1999) Long-term clinical and magnetic resonance imaging follow-up assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after laminectomy. Spine 24:1533–1537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mariconda M, Galasso O, Imbimbo L, Lotti G, Milano C (2007) Relationship between alterations of the lumbar spine, visualized with magnetic resonance imaging, and occupational variables. Eur Spine J 16:255–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleås F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical and radiologic features. Spine 20:1178–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Alyas F, Connell D, Saifuddin A (2008) Upright positional MRI of the lumbar spine. Clin Radiol 63:1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.11.022

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Barz T, Melloh M, Staub L, Roeder C, Lange J, Smiszek FG, Theis JC, Merk HR (2008) The diagnostic value of a treadmill test in predicting lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 17:686–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0593-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Deen HG, Zimmerman RS, Lyons MK, McPhee MC, Verheijde JL, Lemens SM (2000) Test–retest reproducibility of the exercise treadmill examination in lumbar spinal stenosis. Mayo Clin Proc 75:1002–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barz T, Staub LP, Melloh M, Hamann G, Lord SJ, Chatfield MD, Bossuyt PM, Lange J, Merk HR (2014) Clinical validity of the nerve root sedimentation sign in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 14:667–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Staub LP, Barz T, Melloh M, Lord SJ, Chatfiled M, Bossuyt PM (2011) Clinical validation study to measure the performance of the nerve root sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Contemp Clin Trials 32:470–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2011.01.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kanno H, Ozawa H, Koizumi Y, Morozumi N, Aizawa T, Kusakabe T, Ishii Y, Itoi E (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. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182134e73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, 33, Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Taegu, 42472, Korea

    Sangbong Ko

Authors
  1. Sangbong Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sangbong Ko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ko, S. Correlations between sedimentation sign, dural sac cross-sectional area, and clinical symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 27, 1623–1628 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5374-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5374-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation