2018, Vol.25, No.4

Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.03

pISSN : 2093-4378 / eISSN : 2093-4386
https://journal.kci.go.kr/krspine

Study Design: Retrospective case series. Objectives: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical efficacy of postganglionic nerve block in symptomatic Schmorl nodules (SNs). Summary of Literature Review: SNs are common lesions that are often asymptomatic. In certain cases, SNs have been reported to cause severe axial back pain, thereby considerably impacting patients’ quality of life. No consensus currently exists on the treatment of symptomatic SNs. Materials and Methods: From October 2015 to October 2017, a total of 21 patients with symptomatic SNs diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that did not respond to conservative treatment after 4 weeks were included in the study. All patients received postganglionic nerve block. We evaluated effective pain relief (improvement of back pain of more than 50% compared with before the intervention) and functional improvements, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index scores obtained at 4 hours, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure. Results: Symptomatic SNs were more common at the L2-3 level, and the lower end plate was more commonly involved than the upper end plate. Eighteen of the 21 patients (85.7%) showed effective pain relief, and no deterioration was observed within the followup period. Throughout the follow-up period, the VAS remained significantly improved compared to before the procedure (p<0.05). Complications were not reported in any cases. Conclusions: Postganglionic nerve block for symptomatic SNs that do not respond to conservative treatment is a non-invasive modality for pain relief.

Study Design: Retrospective radiographic study. Objective: To evaluate the characteristics of concurrent degenerative cervical and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Summary of Literature Review: Concurrent degenerative cervical and lumbar spondylotic diseases have been reported. Given that severe spondylosis can result in spondylolisthesis, one might expect that concurrent spondylolisthesis of the cervical and lumbar spines might also be prevalent. However, the incidence of spondylolistheses in the lumbar and cervical spines might differ due to anatomical differences between the 2 areas. Nonetheless, there is minimal information in the literature concerning the incidence of concurrent cervical and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Material and Methods: We evaluated standing cervical and lumbar lateral radiographs of 2510 patients with spondylosis. Concurrence, age group, gender, and direction of spondylolisthesis were evaluated. Lumbar spondylolisthesis was defined as at least Meyerding grade I and degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis was defined as over 2 mm of displacement on standing lateral radiographs. Results: Lumbar spondylolisthesis was found in 125 patients (5.0%) and cervical spondylolisthesis was found in 193 patients (7.7%). Seventeen patients had both degenerative cervical and lumbar spondylolistheses (0.7%). Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for coexisting cervical spondylolisthesis. Lumbar spondylolisthesis was more common in females than males, independent of advancing age. In contrast, degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis was more common in older patients, independent of gender. Anterolisthesis was more common in the lumbar spine. Retrolisthesis was more common in the cervical spine. Conclusions: There was a higher prevalence of degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Study Design: Retrospective study of prospectively-collected data. Objectives: To determine the factors associated with conversion from conservative to surgical treatment in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Summary of Literature Review: Various reports have presented clinical outcomes after the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of spinal stenosis. However, few reports have investigated factors predicting conversion to surgery during the course of conservative treatment. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 40 patients who visited our hospital from May 2010 to May 2015 and were traceable for at least 3 years after being advised to undergo surgery following 3 months of conservative treatment. Of these patients, 20 underwent surgery and 20 did not. We then investigated the factors associated with conversion to surgical treatment. Clinical assessments were conducted using a questionnaire, and the overall area of the spinal canal and the muscle area within the spinal canal were measured using magnetic resonance imaging. Results: The average area of the spinal canal was 81.40±53.61 mm2 in the surgical group, compared to 127.75±82.55 mm2 in the nonsurgical group (p=0.042). The muscle area in the spinal canal was 5.17±1.30 cm2 in the surgical group, whereas it was 6.40±1.56 cm2 in the nonsurgical group (p=0.010). The patients in the surgical group were more likely to have experienced repetitive strain and to have frequently visited health clubs (p=0.047, p=0.037, respectively). However, regular stretching was more common in the nonsurgical group (p=0.028). Conclusions: The factors associated with conversion to surgical treatment were a narrow spinal canal, a small muscle area within the spinal canal, visiting health clubs, repetitive sprain, and not stretching. A small muscle area within the spinal canal can be considered as a key factor related to surgical conversion.