A diagnostic support tool for lumbar spinal stenosis: a self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire

Shin-ichi Konno, Shin-ichi Kikuchi, Yasuhisa Tanaka, Ken Yamazaki, You-ichi Shimada, Hiroshi Takei, Toru Yokoyama, Masahiro Okada, Shou-ichi Kokubun, Shin-ichi Konno, Shin-ichi Kikuchi, Yasuhisa Tanaka, Ken Yamazaki, You-ichi Shimada, Hiroshi Takei, Toru Yokoyama, Masahiro Okada, Shou-ichi Kokubun

Abstract

Background: There is no validated gold-standard diagnostic support tool for LSS, and therefore an accurate diagnosis depends on clinical assessment. Assessment of the diagnostic value of the history of the patient requires an evaluation of the differences and overlap of symptoms of the radicular and cauda equina types; however, no tool is available for evaluation of the LSS category. We attempted to develop a self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire as a diagnostic support tool for LSS using a clinical epidemiological approach. The aim of the present study was to use this tool to assess the diagnostic value of the history of the patient for categorization of LSS.

Methods: The initial derivation study included 137 patients with LSS and 97 with lumbar disc herniation who successfully recovered following surgical treatment. The LSS patients were categorized into radicular and cauda equina types based on history, physical examinations, and MRI. Predictive factors for overlapping symptoms between the two types and for cauda equina symptoms in LSS were derived by univariate analysis. A self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire (SSHQ) was developed based on these findings. A prospective derivation study was then performed in a series of 115 patients with LSS who completed the SSHQ before surgery. All these patients recovered following surgical treatment. The sensitivity of the SSHQ was calculated and clinical prediction rules for LSS were developed. A validation study was subsequently performed on 250 outpatients who complained of lower back pain with or without leg symptoms. The sensitivity and specificity of the SSHQ were calculated, and the test-retest reliability over two weeks was investigated in 217 patients whose symptoms remained unchanged.

Results: The key predictive factors for overlapping symptoms between the two categories of LSS were age > 50, lower-extremity pain or numbness, increased pain when walking, increased pain when standing, and relief of symptoms on bending forward (odds ratio > or = 2, p < 0.05). The key predictive factors for cauda equina type symptoms were numbness around the buttocks, walking almost causes urination, a burning sensation around the buttocks, numbness in the soles of both feet, numbness in both legs, and numbness without pain (odds ratio > or = 2, p < 0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of the SSHQ were 84% and 78%, respectively, in the validation data set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.797 in the derivation set and 0.782 in the validation data set. In the test-retest analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the first and second tests was 85%.

Conclusion: A new self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire was developed successfully as a diagnostic support tool for LSS.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of how the diagnosis of LSS was determined.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of the sensitivity of each question for radicular and cauda equina types of LSS.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cut-off point to distinguish between the categories.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the derivation and validation datasets.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Scatter plot of differences versus the means of the test and the retest.

References

    1. de Graaf I, Prak A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Thomas S, Peul W, Koes B. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine. 2006;31:1168–1176. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000216463.32136.7b.
    1. Beattie PF, Meyers SP, Stratford P, Millard RW, Hollenberg GM. Associations between patient report of symptoms and anatomic impairment visible on lumbar magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 2000;25:819–828. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200004010-00010.
    1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine. 1995;20:1178–1186. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199505150-00013.
    1. Katz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G, Katz NP, Bayley J, Fossel AH, Chang LC, Lipson SJ. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis Diagnostic value of the history and physical examination. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 1995;38:1236–1241. doi: 10.1002/art.1780380910.
    1. Mirkovic S, Lybulski G, Montgomery DM, Wang AM, Wesolowski DP, Garfin SR. Spinal stenosis Clinical Evaluation and Different Diagnosis. In: Herkowitz HN et al, editor. Rothman-Simeone, the spine. 4. 1999. pp. 796–806.
    1. Rauschning W. Pathoanatomy of lumbar disc degeneration and stenosis. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64:3–12.
    1. Yoshida M, Shima K, Taniguchi Y, Tamaki T, Tanaka T. Hypertrophied ligamentum flavum in lumbar spinal canal stenosis: Pathogenesis and morphologic and immunohistochemical observation. Spine. 1992;17:1353–1360.
    1. Konno S, Kikuchi S. Prospective study of surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Comparison between decompression alone and decompression with Graf system stabilization. Spine. 2000;25:1533–1537. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200006150-00012.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
    1. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990;263:1405–1408. doi: 10.1001/jama.263.10.1405.
    1. Jonnson B, Stromqvist B. Symptoms and signs in degeneration of the lumbar spine : a prospective, consecutive study of 300 operated patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:381–384.
    1. Pheasant HC, Dyck P. Failed lumbar disc surgery: cause, assessment, treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982:93–109.
    1. Ray CD. Extensive lumbar decompression: Patient selection and results. In: White AH, Rothman RH, Ray CD, editor. Lumbar spine surgery. St. Louis CV Mosby Co; 1987.
    1. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Partronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects: a prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1990;72:403–408.
    1. Wiesel SW, Tsourmas N, Feffer HL, Citrin CM, Patronas N. A study of computer-assisted tomography. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients. Spine. 1984;9:549–551. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198409000-00003.
    1. de Graaf I, Prak A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Thomas S, Peul W, Koes B. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine. 2006;31:1168–1176. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000216463.32136.7b.
    1. Konno S, Hayashino Y, Fukuhara S, Kikuchi S, Kaneda K, Seichi A, Chiba K, Satomi K, Nagata K, Kawai S. Development of a clinical diagnosis support tool to identify patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2007. [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Konno S, Kikuchi S. Pathomechanism of spinal canal stenosis. The therapeutic effects of nerve root infiltration, selective spinal angiography, and sympathetic nerve block. In: Abe O, Inokuchi K, Takahashi K Monduzzi, editor. Proceeding of the 30th congress of the international college of surgeons Bologna. 1996. pp. 1309–1313.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren