Compression of the S1 Nerve Root by an Extradural Vascular Malformation: A Case Report and Discussion of Atypical Causes of Lumbar Radiculopathy

Quantifying Lumbar Foraminal Volumetric Dimensions: Normative Data and Implications for Stenosis-Part 2 of a Comprehensive Series

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS) occurs primarily due to degenerative changes in older adults, affecting the spinal foramina and leading to nerve compression. Characterized by pain, numbness, and muscle weakness, LFS arises from structural changes in discs, joints, and ligaments, further complicated by factors like inflammation and spondylolisthesis. Diagnosis combines patient history, physical examination, and imaging, while management ranges from conservative treatment to surgical intervention, underscoring the need for a tailored approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter study, conducted over six years at a tertiary hospital, analyzed the volumetric dimensions of lumbar foramina and their correlation with nerve structures in 500 patients without lumbar pathology. Utilizing high-resolution MRI with a standardized imaging protocol, eight experienced researchers independently reviewed the images for accurate measurements. The study emphasized quality control through the calibration of measurement tools, double data entry, validation checks, and comprehensive training for researchers. To ensure reliability, interobserver and intraobserver agreements were analyzed, with statistical significance determined by kappa statistics and the Student's t-test. Efforts to minimize bias included blinding observers to patient information and employing broad inclusion criteria to mitigate referral and selection biases. The methodology and findings aim to enhance the understanding of normal lumbar foramina anatomy and its implications for diagnosing and treating lumbar conditions.

RESULTS

The study's volumetric analysis of lumbar foramina in 500 patients showed a progressive increase in foraminal volume from the L1/L2 to the L5/S1 levels, with significant enlargement at L5/S1 indicating anatomical and biomechanical complexity in the lumbar spine. Lateral asymmetry suggested further exploration. High interobserver and intraobserver agreement levels (ICC values of 0.91 and 0.95, respectively) demonstrated the reliability and reproducibility of measurements. The patient cohort comprised 58% males and 42% females, highlighting a balanced gender distribution. These findings underscore the importance of understanding foraminal volume variations for lumbar spinal health and pathology.

CONCLUSION

Our study significantly advances spinal research by quantifying lumbar foraminal volumes, revealing a clear increase from the L1/L2 to the L5/S1 levels, indicative of the spine's adaptation to biomechanical stresses. This provides clinicians with a precise tool to differentiate between pathological narrowing and normal variations, enhancing the detection and treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis. Despite limitations like its cross-sectional design, the strong agreement in measurements underscores the method's reliability, encouraging future research to further explore these findings' clinical implications.

[Lumbar transforaminal epidural block for treatment of low back pain with radicular pain]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of lumbar transforaminal epidural block (LTEB) for treatment of low back pain with radicular pain.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 78 patients with low back pain and radicular pain admitted to the Department of Orthopedics of Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital from March, 2017 to April, 2019. Thirty-three of the patients received treatment with LTEB (LTEB group), and 45 received comprehensive conservative treatment including traction, massage, acupuncture and physiotherapy (control group). The demographic and clinical data of the two groups were compared. The patients were followed up for 3 to 24 months, and numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores of the patients were evaluated before the treatment and at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months after discharge to assess the efficacy of the treatment.

RESULTS

The mean operation time of LTEB was 25.7 7.5 min (15-45 min). After the operation, 5 patients developed weakness of the lower limbs but all recovered within 24-72 h. The patients receiving LTEB all showed significantly decreased NRS scores for low back and radicular pain and ODI scores after the operation (P=0.001). At 2 weeks after the operation, the patients receiving LTEB showed significant relief of low back pain as compared with the patients in the control group (t=2.224, P=0.034), and the difference in NRS scores for low back pain between the two groups tended to diminish over time (F=1.743, P=0.183). Treatment with LTEB resulted in obvious relief of radicular pain and significant reduction of the ODI score of the patients (P < 0.001), and such improvements became more obvious over time after LTEB (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

As a minimally invasive approach, LTEB is effective for treatment of low back pain with radicular pain and can produce good short-term effects of pain relief and functional improvement.