Consensus Conference on Core Radiological Parameters to Describe Lumbar Stenosis - an Initiative for Structured Reporting

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2014 Aug 1

PMID 25079488

Citations 28

Authors

Gustav Andreisek

Richard A Deyo

Jeffrey G Jarvik

Francois Porchet

Sebastian F X Winklhofer

Johann Steurer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To define radiological criteria and parameters as a minimum standard in a structured radiological report for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to identify criteria and parameters for research purposes.

Material And Methods: All available radiological criteria and parameters for LSS were identified using systematic literature reviews and a Delphi survey. We invited to the consensus meeting, and provided data, to 15 internationally renowned experts from different countries. During the meeting, these experts reached consensus in a structured and systematic discussion about a core list of radiological criteria and parameters for standard reporting.

Results: We identified a total of 27 radiological criteria and parameters for LSS. During the meeting, the experts identified five of these as core items for a structured report. For central stenosis, these were "compromise of the central zone" and "relation between fluid and cauda equina". For lateral stenosis, the group agreed that "nerve root compression in the lateral recess" was a core item. For foraminal stenosis, we included "nerve root impingement" and "compromise of the foraminal zone".

Conclusion: As a minimum standard, five radiological criteria should be used in a structured radiological report in LSS. Other parameters are well suited for research.

Key Points: The five most important radiological criteria for standard clinical reporting were selected. The five most important quantitative radiological parameters for research purposes were selected. These core criteria could help standardize the communication between health care providers.

Citing Articles

Incidence and long-term patient reported outcome measures of patients with radiological cauda equina compression but without clinical features of cauda equina syndrome.

Soleiman H, Solou M, Demetriades A J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2025; 15(4):482-491.

PMID: 40061191 PMC: 11888039. DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_132_24.

Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wang T, Chen R, Fan N, Zang L, Yuan S, Du P J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26():e54676.

PMID: 39715552 PMC: 11704645. DOI: 10.2196/54676.

AI-based lumbar central canal stenosis classification on sagittal MR images is comparable to experienced radiologists using axial images.

van der Graaf J, Brundel L, van Hooff M, de Kleuver M, Lessmann N, Maresch B Eur Radiol. 2024; .

PMID: 39299953 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11080-0.

A neural network model for detection and classification of lumbar spinal stenosis on MRI.

Tumko V, Kim J, Uspenskaia N, Honig S, Abel F, Lebl D Eur Spine J. 2023; 33(3):941-948.

PMID: 38150003 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-08089-2.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Grading Systems for Central Canal and Neural Foraminal Stenoses of the Lumbar and Cervical Spines With a Focus on the Lee Grading System.

Seo J, Lee J Korean J Radiol. 2023; 24(3):224-234.

PMID: 36788771 PMC: 9971835. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2022.0351.

References

Mamisch N, Brumann M, Hodler J, Held U, Brunner F, Steurer J . Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis: results of a Delphi survey. Radiology. 2012; 264(1):174-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12111930. View

Min J, Jang J, Lee S . Clinical significance of redundant nerve roots of the cauda equina in lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007; 110(1):14-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2007.08.005. View

Hamanishi C, Matukura N, Fujita M, Tomihara M, Tanaka S . Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging. J Spinal Disord. 1994; 7(5):388-93. View

Ullrich C, Binet E, Sanecki M, Kieffer S . Quantitative assessment of the lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography. Radiology. 1980; 134(1):137-43. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.134.1.7350593. View

Schonstrom N, Bolender N, Spengler D . The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985; 10(9):806-11. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198511000-00005. View

Frates M, Benson C, Charboneau J, Cibas E, Clark O, Coleman B . Management of thyroid nodules detected at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus conference statement. Radiology. 2005; 237(3):794-800. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373050220. View

Bartynski W, Lin L . Lumbar root compression in the lateral recess: MR imaging, conventional myelography, and CT myelography comparison with surgical confirmation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003; 24(3):348-60. PMC: 7973614. View

Stieber J, Quirno M, Cunningham M, Errico T, Bendo J . The reliability of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging grading of lumbar facet arthropathy in total disc replacement patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(23):E833-40. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bda50a. View

Mikhael M, Ciric I, Tarkington J, Vick N . Neuroradiological evaluation of lateral recess syndrome. Radiology. 1981; 140(1):97-107. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.140.1.7244248. View

10.

Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T . Computed tomography after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patients' pain patterns, walking capacity, and subjective disability had no correlation with computed tomography findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(17):1975-8. View

11.

Genevay S, Atlas S, Katz J . 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(7):803-11. PMC: 2854829. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bc9454. View

12.

Strojnik T . Measurement of the lateral recess angle as a possible alternative for evaluation of the lateral recess stenosis on a CT scan. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2004; 113 Suppl 3:53-8. View

13.

Wilmink J, Korte J, Penning L . Dimensions of the spinal canal in individuals symptomatic and non-symptomatic for sciatica: a CT study. Neuroradiology. 1988; 30(6):547-50. DOI: 10.1007/BF00339699. View

14.

Pathria M, Sartoris D, Resnick D . Osteoarthritis of the facet joints: accuracy of oblique radiographic assessment. Radiology. 1987; 164(1):227-30. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.164.1.3588910. View

15.

Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, Stromqvist B . A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Clinical features related to radiographic findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 22(24):2932-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00016. View

16.

Prasartritha T, Suntisathaporn N, Vathana P, Sriphojanart C . The size of the vertebral canal and the significance of epidural fat in lumbar spinal stenosis. J Med Assoc Thai. 1997; 80(4):247-56. View

17.

Haig A, Geisser M, Tong H, Yamakawa K, Quint D, Hoff J . Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low-back pain, and no back symptoms. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(2):358-66. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00704. View

18.

Kunogi J, HASUE M . Diagnosis and operative treatment of intraforaminal and extraforaminal nerve root compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(11):1312-20. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199111000-00012. View

19.

Rawall S, Mohan K . Re: Barz T, Melloh M, Staub LP, et al. Nerve root sedimentation sign. Evaluation of a new radiological sign in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2010;35:892–7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(24):E1359-60. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181fab802. View

20.

Lurie J, Doman D, Spratt K, Tosteson A, Weinstein J . Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with symptomatic lumbar spine disc herniations: comparison of clinician and radiologist readings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(7):701-5. PMC: 2754781. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819b390e. View