scholarly journals Lumbar Spine Disc Herniation Diagnosis with a Joint Shape Model

2014 ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raja S. Alomari ◽  
Jason J. Corso ◽  
Vipin Chaudhary ◽  
Gurmeet Dhillon
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Shape Model ◽  
Joint Shape

scholarly journals Concomitance of Obesity and Overweight with Disc Height and Disc Herniation in Lumbar Spine

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 11-14
Author(s):  
Sima Falah Arzpeyma ◽  
Gholamreza Mahfoozi ◽  
Parisa Sedighi Moghadam Pour ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Obesity And Overweight

scholarly journals A Rare Case of Delayed Onset Tunneling Disc Herniation in the Lumbar Spine

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-283
Author(s):  
Toru Maeda ◽  
Kosaku Higashino ◽  
Satoshi Hattori ◽  
Koichi Sairyo
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Rare Case ◽  
Delayed Onset

scholarly journals Endoscopic Transforaminal Microdiscetomy of the Lumbar Spine. Retrospective Analysis of 350 Clinical Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (53) ◽  
pp. 42-47
Author(s):  
Valentine Piontkovsky ◽  
◽  
Vladimir Zlativ ◽  
Bogdan Mironik ◽  
Victor Kasyanchuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Preoperative Planning ◽  
Minimally Invasive Technique ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
New Instrumentation

The article evaluates the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic microdiscectomy, highlight the disadvantages and advantages of this method in comparison with traditional methods, based on the data obtained, determine the main indications and contraindications for this procedure. Endoscopic transforaminal microdiscectomy is a modern minimally invasive technique that has a number of advantages over open microdiscectomy. Certain anatomical limitations and features of free sequestration migration require detailed patient selection and preoperative planning. The key to solving these problems is the development of new instrumentation, which in the future will significantly reduce the number of recurrent disc herniation

P88 Identifying risk factors for multiple revisional lumbar spine surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. e45.1-e45
Author(s):  
M El Sheikh ◽  
K Badran ◽  
O Kouli ◽  
M Abdelsadg ◽  
M Fadelalla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Morbidity Rate ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Neurosurgical Department ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Diabetes Status

ObjectivesRecurrent lumbar spine surgery due to disc herniation is a contributor to debilitating pain, disability, and carries a high patient morbidity rate1 We identified risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniation post-surgical intervention.DesignRetrospective Cohort Study.SubjectsAll adult lumbar spine revisions for disc herniation performed in the Neurosurgical Department at Ninewells Hospital.MethodsThe number of revisions from 2013 to 2017 for each patient was recorded and two groups were identified. The first group consisted of patients who had one revision and the second group consisted of patients who had recurrent revisions (more than one) Possible factors influencing the likelihood of recurrent revisions were also noted, including age, gender, BMI, operation length, level of surgery, time from primary surgery to revision, smoking and diabetes status.Results140 patients had revision surgeries, of which 87 (62.1%) had one revision while 53 (37.1%) had recurrent operations. Younger patients (p=0.025) and patients with higher BMI (p=0.01) were more likely to have a higher number of revisions. Patients with DM (p=0.015) were associated with a higher likelihood of recurrent revisions. Other factors had little effect on the likelihood of recurrent revisions (p>0.05).ConclusionsIdentifying risk factors that influence the recurrence of lumbar revisions helps improve patient outcome and decrease incidence of revisions.

Overreporting of the disc herniation in lumbar spine MRI scans performed for patients with spondylolisthesis

2020 ◽  
pp. 028418512092548
Author(s):  
Hassan Semaan ◽  
Bryan Curnutte ◽  
Maxwell Cooper ◽  
Joud Obri ◽  
Mazzin Elsamaloty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mri Scans ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Spine Surgeon ◽  
Spine Mri ◽  
Group 1

Background Spondylolisthesis is often misdiagnosed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the slip may reduce to a normal alignment when the patient lies supine. Often, disc herniation is reported at the level of spondylolisthesis. Purpose To determine the incidence rates of disc herniation at the level of spondylolisthesis. Material and Methods This is a retrospective study included 258 consecutive patients with spondylolisthesis who had lumbar spine MRI. The archived reports were collectively put in Group 1. A musculoskeletal radiologist and a spine surgeon reviewed the imaging studies together. Their readings were referred to as Group 2. The findings of both groups were compared to evaluate whether disc herniation was overreported. Results Group 1 reported findings of true disc herniation in 112 (41.6%) cases and pseudo disc herniation or no findings of disc herniation at the level of spondylolisthesis in 157 (58.4%) cases. Group 2 reported findings of a true disc herniation in 25 (9.3%) cases and pseudo disc herniation or no findings of disc herniation in the remaining 244 (90.7%) cases. There was a statistically significant difference in the reporting rates between these two groups ( P < 0.02). The most overreported finding was the disc bulging ( P < 0.01). Conclusion The current study showed overreporting of disc herniation in lumbar spine MRI scans performed for patients with established spondylolisthesis. The majority of disc pathology at the level of spondylolisthesis are pseudo disc rather than a true disc herniation. An accurate diagnosis is vital in planning surgical intervention.

Evaluation of the post-operative lumbar spine with MR imaging

1997 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 1035-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Grane ◽  
M. Lindqvist
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Contrast Enhancement ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Nerve Roots ◽  
Contrast Administration ◽  
Repeat Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Nerve Root

Purpose: Two new signs of lumbar nerve-root affection have been reported in recent years on the basis of MR examinations, namely: thickening in nerve roots; and contrast enhancement in nerve roots. the aim of this study was to assess contrast enhancement in nerve roots in a standardised way, and to evaluate the clinical significance of contrast enhancement and of nerve-root thickening in the symptomatic post-operative lumbar spine Material and Methods: A total of 121 patients (who had previously been operated on for lumbar disc herniation) underwent 152 MR examinations, mainly on a 1.5 T system. Focal nerve-root enhancement was identified by visual assessment. Intradural enhancement was also quantified by pixel measurements that compared the affected nerve roots before and after contrast administration. Non-affected nerve roots were used as reference Results: Enhanced nerve roots in the dural sac increased at least 40–50% in signal intensity after contrast administration compared to pre-contrast images and also compared to non-affected nerve roots. Intradural nerve-root enhancement was seen in 10% of the patients and focal enhancement in the root sleeve was seen in a further 26%. Nerve-root thickening was seen in 30%. Good correlation with clinical symptoms was found in 59% of the patients with intradural enhancement, in 84% with focal enhancement, and in 86% with nerve-root thickening. the combination of thickening and enhancement in the nerve root correlated with symptoms in 86% of the patients Conclusion: Nerve-root enhancement (whether focal or intradural) and thickening in the nerve root are significant MR findings in the post-operative lumbar spine. in combination with disc herniation or nerve-root displacement, these two signs may strengthen the indication for repeat surgery. However, root enhancement within 6 months of previous surgery may be a normal post-operative finding

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document