Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Severity by CT or MRI Does Not Predict Response to Epidural Corticosteroid versus Lidocaine Injections.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Epidural steroid injections may offer little-to-no short-term benefit in the overall population of patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with lidocaine alone. We investigated whether imaging could identify subgroups of patients who might benefit most. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis prospective, double-blind trial was performed, and patients were randomized to receive an epidural injection of lidocaine with or without corticosteroids. Patients (n = 350) were evaluated for qualitative and quantitative MR imaging or CT measures of lumbar spinal stenosis. The primary clinical end points were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the leg pain numeric rating scale at 3 weeks following injection. ANCOVA was used to assess the significance of interaction terms between imaging measures of spinal stenosis and injectate type on clinical improvement. RESULTS: There was no difference in the improvement of disability or leg pain scores at 3 weeks between patients injected with epidural lidocaine alone compared with corticosteroid and lidocaine when accounting for the primary imaging measures of qualitative spinal stenosis assessment (interaction coefficients for disability score, -0.1; 95% CI, -1.3 to 1.2; P = .90; and for the leg pain score, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.8; P = .81) or the quantitative minimum thecal sac cross-sectional area (interaction coefficients for disability score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .40; and for the leg pain score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging measures of spinal stenosis are not associated with differential clinical responses following epidural corticosteroid injection.

Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review summarises the literature on patient selection, decision-making, effectiveness and outcomes in the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS). INTRODUCTION: In daily practice, decision-making in the treatment of LDS is challenging. There is little consensus on either the precise indications or prognostic factors for any specific therapy (operative or non-operative). METHODS: We searched for LDS trials published between 01.01.1990 and 16.11.2011 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Cinahl. Two independent reviewers selected studies according to the inclusion criteria. Data were then extracted by two of the authors. Quality assessment was performed using the Downs and Black list for the clinical trials/studies and AMSTAR for the reviews. DATA SYNTHESIS: 21 papers met the inclusion criteria (2 studies comprising both a RCT and a concurrent observational analysis, 1 RCT, 6 prospective studies, 8 retrospective studies, 3 reviews, 1 review guideline). The quality of the clinical studies was on average "fair" [mean score 15.6 points (range 10-19) out of 24 points (Downs and Black)]. The quality of the reviews ranged from 1 to 7 out of 11 points with an average of 5 points (AMSTAR). The study outcomes could not be subject to meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of study design and variable measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Despite there being many articles describing and/or comparing different surgical options for LDS, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions concerning clear indications for specific types of surgical treatment, predictors of outcome or complication rates. There remains a need to establish a decision-making tool to facilitate daily clinical practice and to assure appropriate treatment for patients with LDS.

Spondylolysis: a critical review.

AIM: To provide an understanding of the current concepts in the natural history, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of spondylolysis based on the available medical literature. METHODS: Articles were selected for review by the following methods: (a) MEDLINE searches with review of abstracts to select relevant articles; (b) review of multiple textbooks considered likely to contain information on spondylolysis; (c) review of references in articles identified by (a) and (b). Over 125 articles were ultimately reviewed fully. Publications were selected for inclusion in this article on the basis of perceived scientific and historical merit, particularly as thought to be relevant to achieving the stated purpose of this review. As no controlled clinical trials were identified, this could not be used as an inclusion criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Isthmic spondylolysis is considered to represent a fatigue fracture of the pars interarticularis of the neural arch. There is a relatively high incidence of radiographically identified spondylolysis in the general population, but the vast majority of these lesions probably occur without associated symptoms. Symptomatic pars lesions appear to be particularly a clinical problem in adolescents, especially adolescent athletes. The optimal diagnostic and treatment algorithms are not well identified in the current literature. Multiple imaging studies may have a role in the diagnosis of a pars lesion, and treatment seems likely to require at least relative rest and physical rehabilitation with consideration of bracing or, rarely, surgical intervention depending on the clinical context.

Spondylolysis.

Spondylolysis is a relatively common incidental radiographic finding that, most frequently, is asymptomatic. Isthmic spondylolysis with a lesion in the pars interarticularis may be a significant cause of pain in a given individual, particularly in adolescent athletes involved in sports with repetitive spinal motions. The pars lesion likely represents a stress fracture of the bone caused by the cumulative effect of repetitive stress imposed by physical activity. The lesion frequently presents as focal LBP and can often be identified on plain radiography. Advanced imaging with SPECT, CT, and MR imaging may be needed to ascertain the acuity of the lesion, assist in identifying a particular pars lesion as potentially symptomatic, and to exclude other spinal pathology that may be present. Conservative treatment is usually successful in controlling symptoms and restoring function; only a small percentage of patients require surgical intervention for pain or progressive spondylolisthesis. Based on current evidence, treatment requires activity restriction (i.e., temporary discontinuation of the aggravating sport or activity) and may require bracing to achieve treatment goals, although healing, pain relief or both may occur without brace application. A full understanding of spinal biomechanics and pathophysiology, the role of diagnostic imaging, and treatment options is needed to care for these patients.