Facet Sagittal Orientation

Liu, Xiang; Zhao, Xiaodong; Long, Yaowu; Huang, Kai; Xie, Dazhi; Wang, Feng; Chen, Guangfu; Yuan, Zhirui; Wang, Jixing

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002493

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The association between facet orientation and DLSS has been recently mentioned by Liu and colleagues who reported that individuals with DLSS had remarkable sagittal lumbar facet orientation (from L2-3 to L5-S1) compared with the control group [ 27 ]. Moreover, one study has shown that patients with sagittally oriented facets have narrow osseous spinal canals [ 37 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Facet Tropism and Orientation: Risk Factors for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Abbas

Peled

Hershkovitz

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to establish whether facet tropism (FT) and orientation (FO) are associated with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). A retrospective computerized tomography (CT) study including 274 individuals was divided into two groups: control (82 males and 81 females) and stenosis (59 males and 52 females). All participants have undergone high-resolution CT scan of the lumbar spine in the same position. FT and FO were measured at L1-2 to L5-S1. Significant sagittal FO was noted in the stenosis males (L2-3 to L4-5) and females (L2-3 to L5-S1) compared to the controls. The prevalence of FT was remarkably greater in the stenosis males (L4-5, L5-S1) and females (L3-4, L5-S1) compared to their counterparts in the control group. Our results also showed that FT (L3-4 to L5-S1) increases approximately 2.9 times the likelihood for DLSS development. This study indicates that FO and FT in the lower lumbar spine are significantly associated with DLSS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others, however, have disputed some of these associations [ 6 , 25 , 26 ]. Although one study [ 27 ] has recently reported that DLSS population manifested significantly smaller facet orientations compared to control yet, no study has investigated, to date, whether facet asymmetry can affect DLSS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facet Tropism and Orientation: Risk Factors for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Abbas

Peled

Hershkovitz

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They protect the disk from excessive shear and rotation, whilst guiding motion between two adjacent vertebrae 30. An association between sagittal orientation of the lumbar facet joints and LDS have been proposed by previous studies 6,14,31–33. According to Boden et al 14 the threshold for sagittal oriented lumbar facet joints are 45° at L4/L5.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…30 An association between sagittal orientation of the lumbar facet joints and LDS have been proposed by previous studies. 6,14,[31][32][33] According to Boden et al 14 the threshold for sagittal oriented lumbar facet joints are 45°at L4/L5. We confirm that sagittal oriented facet joints are predictive of radiographic instability.…”

Section: Facet Joint Anglementioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Proxies for Segmental Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Patients

Elmose

Andersen

Sigmundsson

et al. 2022

Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: The aim was to investigate whether findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be proxies (MRIPs) for segmental instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) L4/L5. Background: LDS has a heterogeneous nature. Some patients have a dynamic component of segmental instability associated with LDS. Studies have shown that MRI can show signs of instability. Methods: Patients with LSS or LDS at L4/L5 undergoing decompressive surgery±fusion from 2010 to 2017, with preoperative standing lateral spine radiographs and supine lumbar MRI and enrolled in Danish national spine surgical database, DaneSpine. Instability defined as slip of >3 mm on radiographs. Patients divided into two groups based upon presence of instability. Outcome measures: radiograph: sagittal slip (mm). MRIPs for instability: sagittal slip >3 mm, facet joint angle (°), facet joint effusion (mm), disk height index (%), and presence of vacuum phenomena. Optimal thresholds for MRIPs was determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC). Logistic regression to investigate association between instability and MRIPs. Results: Two hundred thirty-two patients: 47 stable group and 185 unstable group. The two groups were comparable with regard to baseline patient-reported outcome measures. Thresholds for MRIPs: bilateral facet joint angle ≥46°; bilateral facet effusion ≥1.5 mm and disk height index ≥13%. Logistic regression showed statistically significant association with MRIPs except vacuum phenomena, ROC curve AUC of 0.951. By absence of slip on MRI logistic regression showed statistically significant association between instability on radiograph and the remaining MRIPs, ROC curve AUC 0.757. Conclusion: Presence of MRIPs for instability showed statistically significant association with instability and excellent ability to predict instability on standing radiograph in LSS and LDS patients. Even in the absence of slip on MRI the MRIPs had a good ability to discriminate presence of instability.

show abstract

“…Such dynamic effects on the lumbar spinal canal with axially loaded spine observed with computed tomography–myelography and MRI in patients with sciatica have been reported and agree to the findings of this study involving asymptomatic individuals [ 6 , 11 ]. These increments could also reflect increasing curvature of the lumbar spine, particularly at the thoracolumbar and lumbosacral junctions with the upright spine [ 18 – 21 ]. Reductions in disk heights reflect axial loading, though the reductions are not proportionately as large as reported in some earlier studies [ 22 – 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Spine Anatomy in Supine versus Weight- Bearing Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Detecting Significant Positional Changes and Testing Reliability of Quantification

Mahato,

Maharaj,

Clark

2024

Asian Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Testing between and within group differences and assessing reliability of measurements.Purpose: To study and compare lumbar spine morphology in supine and weight-bearing (WB) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Overview of Literature: Upright lumbar MRI may uncover anatomical changes that may escape detection when using conventional supine imaging. This study quantified anatomical dimensions of the lumbar spine in the supine and WB MRI, compared specific morphometric differences between them, and tested the intra-rater reliability of the measurements. Repeated measures analysis was used to compare within- and between-session measurements performed on the supine and WB images. Reliability and agreement were assessed by calculating intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient.Methods: Data from 12 adults without any history of back pain were used in this study. Sagittal T2-weighted images of the lumbar spine were acquired in the supine and WB positions twice (in two separate sessions scheduled within a week). Linear, angular dimensions, and cross-sectional areas (CSAs) were measured using proprietary software. Supine and WB data acquired from the two imaging sessions were tested for intra-rater reliability. Quantified data were normalized for each session to test the significance of differences. ICC was calculated to test the reliability of the measurements.Results: Linear, angular, and CSA measurements demonstrated strong within-position (supine and WB) correlations (r -values, 0.75–0.97). Between-position (supine vs. WB) differences were significant for all measured dimensions (<i>p</i><0.05). Between-session measurements demonstrated a strong correlation (r -values, 0.64–0.83). Calculated ICC showed strong agreement among the measurements.Conclusions: Anatomical dimensions of the lumbar spine may demonstrate consistent and significant differences between supine and WB MRI for specific structural parameters.

show abstract

Facet Sagittal Orientation

Abstract: 3.

Cited by 21 publications

References 12 publications

Facet Tropism and Orientation: Risk Factors for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Facet Tropism and Orientation: Risk Factors for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Proxies for Segmental Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Patients

Lumbar Spine Anatomy in Supine versus Weight- Bearing Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Detecting Significant Positional Changes and Testing Reliability of Quantification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About