Leveron&Nexovas
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 12011  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (1,388 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Material and Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed232    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 224-229

Lumbar Facet Effusions and Other Degeneration Parameters and Its Association with Instability


Department of Neurosurgery, Consultorio de Dolor, Lanús, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Date of Submission09-Dec-2020
Date of Decision04-Oct-2021
Date of Acceptance22-Oct-2021
Date of Web Publication11-Nov-2022

Correspondence Address:
Damián Bendersky
Enrique del Valle Iberlucea 3652, Lanus, Provincia de Buenos Aires - 1824
Argentina
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.360912

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Controversy exists in the literature about whether facet effusions and other degeneration parameters are associated with instability.
Objective: To assess the association between facet effusions and other lumbar degeneration parameters and segmental instability.
Material and Methods: In this study, 207 L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels in 104 patients were assessed. We divided the spinal levels into two groups: the small facet effusions (SFE) group in whom facet effusions were <1.5 mm or non-effusions were found, and the large facet effusions (LFE) group in whom they were ≥1.5 mm. The association between other degeneration parameters and instability was also assessed, such as disc degeneration, Modic changes (MC), spondylolisthesis, facet orientation and tropism, facet subchondral sclerosis, and facet cartilage degeneration. Furthermore, we subdivided the levels into subgroups to evaluate the association of LFE and instability within each one.
Results: The main analysis comparing the presence of instability in SFE and LFE groups showed a non-statistically significant association between LFE and instability. The presence of MC type 1 and the existence of L4–L5 spondylolisthesis had a statistically significant association with instability. In the subset of 43 levels with L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, the presence of LFE and the existence of MC type 1 reached a significant association with instability.
Conclusion: The presence of LFE and/or MC type 1 may act as red flags in patients with L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis to suspect segmental instability.


Keywords: Facet effusions, facet joint, instability, Modic changes, spondylolisthesis
Key Message: Large facet effusions are thought to be associated with segmental instability. In this study, we found this association in the subset of patients with L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.


How to cite this article:
Bendersky D, Asem M, Navarrete O. Lumbar Facet Effusions and Other Degeneration Parameters and Its Association with Instability. Neurol India 2022;70, Suppl S2:224-9

How to cite this URL:
Bendersky D, Asem M, Navarrete O. Lumbar Facet Effusions and Other Degeneration Parameters and Its Association with Instability. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 3];70, Suppl S2:224-9. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2022/70/8/224/360912




Facet effusions were described by Chaput et al.[1] as a curvilinear, high-intensity signal within the facet joint on the axial T2-weighted images. Controversy exists in the literature about whether they are associated with instability.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] It is thought that they may represent the laxity of the soft tissue of the facet joint, which might allow an abnormal range of motion in the spinal level, corresponding to the second phase of the degeneration process described by Kirkaldy–Willis et al.[1],[7],[11],[12],[28],[29] However, it is not the only image finding that is suspected to be associated with instability, but also Modic changes (MC) type one, facet orientation, and spondylolisthesis, among others.[2],[4],[7],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[27] Existence of segmental instability is an important concern for spine surgeons during the decision-making process as it may lead to choosing a surgical treatment instead of a conservative approach, and it can change our surgical plan as arthrodesis may need to be performed. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that instability is responsible for several cases of residual or recurrent pain following lumbar spine surgery in which fusion was not performed.[18],[30] Thus, it is meaningful to find different MRI features that could be related to instability in order to use them in clinical practice.

The main objective of this paper is to assess the association between facet effusions and segmental instability. Furthermore, we evaluate the relationship between other lumbar degeneration parameters and instability, as well as the association between these image findings and the presence of facet effusions.[31]


 » Material and Methods Top


Patients with low back pain were included in this study between 2018 and 2020. They were assessed in the office, and all measurements were recorded using a printed form completed by the authors. Then, the data were transferred to our database on the computer. We conducted this study in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study's protocol was reviewed and approved by the institute's review board (IRB No. 002-2018). Participants provided informed consent to carry out these measurements and to publish the harvested data or images. Only L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels were assessed, and all analysis was done per level instead of per patient. Both spinal levels were evaluated in all patients but one in whom L4–L5 data was not available because of a filling form problem. In those classifications in which laterality is present (such as facet effusions or Grogan ones), the highest grade of the level was recorded. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients with low back pain (alone or with associated radicular pain) and age older than 18 years who had undergone flexion and extension dynamic x-rays of the lumbar spine as well as lumbar spine MRI. We do not use CT scan routinely in our clinical practice in lumbar degenerative disease patients. Exclusion criteria were as follows: previous lumbar surgery; recent lumbar facet joint blockage; L5–S1 spondylolisthesis; L4–L5 spondylolisthesis of other suspected etiology than degenerative one; and the presence of scoliosis, spinal tumor, infection, or fracture in the lumbar region. It must be borne in mind that a recent previous facet joint blockage may generate an image in the MRI that could be confused with facet effusion. All patients with spondylolisthesis included had L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis in order to avoid including the different biomechanical population of patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Upper lumbar levels have different facet orientations; this may generate a more heterogeneous sample. Instability in the spinal segment was defined with the presence of one or more of the following findings: translation ≥5 mm or angulation ≥10° in dynamic X-rays or a present spondylolisthesis in standing X-rays that reduces in static MRI. We did not use dynamic MRI in this study.

The main objective of this study was to assess whether the existence of large facet effusions is associated with instability of the spinal segment. Facet effusions were assessed in axial T2-weighted MRI images. Based on Chaput et al.[1] description and Tamai et al.[2] grading (0: no effusion, 1: effusion <1.5 mm, and 2: effusion ≥1.5 mm), we decided to divide the spinal levels into two groups: the small facet effusions (SFE) group in whom facet effusions were <1.5 mm and the large facet effusions (LFE) group in whom they were ≥1.5 mm [Figure 1]. The association of both groups with instability was evaluated as the main outcome of the study. Furthermore, we compared the demographic data and the presence of other lumbar degeneration parameters among both groups.
Figure 1: Facet effusions were assessed in axial T2-weighted MRI images. (a) No facet effusions are shown. These levels are included in the small facet effusions group in this study. (b) Facet effusions are <1.5 mm (small facet effusions group). (c) Large facet effusions group in which they are ≥1.5 mm. Red lines show how facet effusions were measured

Click here to view


The relationship between other image findings and segmental instability was also assessed. Regarding the assessment of degenerative disc disease (DDD), we used the Pfirmann classification [Figure 2].[19] We defined two subgroups based on this classification: low-grade DDD (LGDDD) and high-grade DDD (HGDDD). The former was composed of grades 1, 2, and 3, whereas the latter comprised grades 4 and 5. Facet subchondral sclerosis. Facet cartilage degeneration were measured using the pertinent Grogan classifications [Figure 3] and [Figure 4].[20],[32] Facet orientation in the right and left sides were measured as is shown in [Figure 5]; the difference of degrees between both sides was also recorded. The presence and type of MC were also assessed in the MRI as described elsewhere.[13],[17],[33] MC type 1 is hyperintense in T2-weighted images and hypointense in T1-weighted images, whereas the endplates are hyperintense in T1-weighted images and iso or hyperintense in T2-weighted images in MC type 2 and hypointense in both T1- and T2-weighted images in MC type 3.
Figure 2: Pfirmann classification of disc degeneration. Grade 1: The disc structure is homogeneous and its height is preserved. Grade 2: It is inhomogeneous, with or without horizontal bands. Grade 3: It is inhomogeneous and gray, and the distinction between annulus and nucleus is unclear. Grade 4: The disc is inhomogeneous, gray to black, and its height is decreased. Grade 5: It is a collapsed disc space, which is hypointense in T2-weighted MRI images and black. The distinction between annulus and nucleus is also lost

Click here to view
Figure 3: Grogan classification of facet subchondral sclerosis. Grade 1: Uniform thin band of cortical bone. Grade 2: A thin band of cortical bone that extended into the space from the articular surface. Grade 3: Dense bone that extended into the facet joint space but covered less than half of the facet. Grade 4: Osteophytes or dense cortical bone that covered greater than half the facet joint

Click here to view
Figure 4: Grogan classification of facet cartilage degeneration. Grade 1: Uniformly thick cartilage covering both articular surfaces completely. Grade 2: Cartilage covering the entire surface with eroded or irregular regions. Grade 3: Cartilage incompletely covering the articular surface, with the underlying bone exposed to the joint space. Grade 4: Complete absence of cartilage except for traces evident on the articular surface

Click here to view
Figure 5: The angle of facet orientation was measured with reference to the sagittal plane on both sides using axial MRI images

Click here to view


Finally, we subdivided the levels into subgroups to evaluate the association of LFE and instability within each subgroup: spondylolisthetic, HGDDD, LGDDD, and MC type 1 subsets. In the spondylolisthesis subgroup (L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis), the relationship between MC Type 1 and instability was also analyzed.[34]

Statistical analysis was performed with Mann–Whitney test for quantitative variables and with Fisher exact test and Chi-square test for categorical ones. Statistical significance was accepted if P was <0.05 (to refuse the null hypothesis).


 » Results Top


In total, 207 L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels were assessed. When comparing the features of LFE and SFE groups, only the finding of LGDDD had a significant relationship with LFE [Table 1]. The main analysis comparing the presence of instability in SFE and LFE groups showed a non-statistically significant association between larger facet effusions and instability (P = 0.516). Furthermore, other lumbar degeneration parameters did not reach statistical significance: presence of MC types 2 or 3 (P = 0.459 and P = 1, respectively), absence of MC (P = 0.086), presence of LGDDD (P = 0.837), Grogan subchondral sclerosis or cartilage degeneration grades, facet orientation and difference of facet orientation between both sides. In addition, the fact of being L4–L5 or L5–S1 level and gender were not significantly related with instability (P = 0.154 and P = 0.837, respectively) [Table 2]. There were only three patients with synovial cysts; thus, we could not perform a statistical analysis.
Table 1: Comparison between the features of large facet effusions (LFE) and small facet effusions (SFE) groups

Click here to view
Table 2: Lumbar degeneration parameters and their association with instability

Click here to view


In contrast, the presence of MC type 1 and the existence of L4–L5 spondylolisthesis had a statistically significant association with instability (P = 0.001 in both cases). However, only 39% of MC type 1 levels were unstable, whereas almost 70% of levels with spondylolisthesis were stable.

Both in the subset of levels with LGDDD and HGDDD, LFE was not associated with instability (P = 0.782 and P = 0.704, respectively) [Table 3]. In the subset of 43 levels with L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, the presence of LFE had a significant association with instability (P = 0.046), but only 47.3% of patients with LFE and spondylolisthesis were unstable. In these listhetic levels, the finding of MC type 1 in the MRI was also associated with instability (P = 0.042), which was found in 62.5% of levels with spondylolisthesis and MC type 1 together [Table 3].
Table 3: Subsets of patients

Click here to view


In the subset of 23 levels with MC type 1 in the MRI, the appearance of LFE did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.214); however, the resultant subgroups were too small to perform a proper analysis [Table 3].


 » Discussion Top


LFE was associated with instability only within the subset of levels with spondylolisthesis in our study, although only 47.3% of these levels were unstable. Thus, LFE might reflect the facet capsule laxity in these listhetic levels, which allows hypermobility in the segment. Spondylolisthesis itself was also significantly related with instability, but only 30% of levels with listhesis were unstable.[35],[36] Thus, the presence of spondylolisthesis does not mean that the patient is unstable in daily clinical practice. The same occurs with the existence of MC type 1 in the MRI, which achieved a statistically significant association with instability, but 61% of these levels were stable. However, these results are useful to the spine surgeon in order to suspect instability in these groups of patients as it was more frequent in these subsets. Interestingly, the levels with MC type 1 within the subgroup of spondylolisthesis had a statistically significant association with instability and 62.5% of them were unstable. This is a very useful finding as we can suspect strongly the presence of instability when a spinal level shows both features in the MRI: spondylolisthesis and MC type 1. Thus, probably the most interesting and helpful result of our study for clinical practice is that we should suspect instability in discs with spondylolisthesis and MC type 1 and/or LFE.

The association between facet effusions and instability is controversial in the literature. Chaput et al.[1] concluded that facet effusions >1.5 mm in L4–L5 level were predictive of spondylolisthesis in dynamic X-rays when there was no listhesis seen in the supine MRI, which is one of our diagnostic criteria for instability. Furthermore, the authors added that they did not measure an effusion ≥1.5 mm in the group of patients without anterolisthesis in the dynamic radiographs. Lattig et al.[4] also found in their research that facet joint effusion was correlated with spontaneous reduction of the extent of slippage in the supine position compared to the upright position. Fernandes et al.[3] did not find an association between facet effusion and instability and they explained that the presence of facet effusions should not influence the therapeutic decision between decompression alone and decompression with arthrodesis. Tamai et al.[2] reported that facet joint effusion had no effect on the outcome of decompression alone surgery in the absence of preoperative instability. Other studies found an association between facet fluid and instability.[6],[7],[8],[9]

The lack of association of LFE and instability depends on other factors too, such as the definitions of LFE and instability used in the study. Regarding the facet effusion size threshold, we decided to define LFE when they were ≥1.5 mm because Chaput et al.[1] found that effusions larger than this value were predictive of instability. Instability definition varies in the literature. Nowadays, several authors use translation ≥3 mm in dynamic X-rays as a diagnostic criterion for instability instead of translation ≥5 mm as we used here.[3],[9],[21] Probably, if we had used the 3-mm threshold, we would have found more unstable levels in our case series and this fact would have changed our outcomes. Nevertheless, we used a classic threshold of translation, which was also utilized by other authors.[7],[22]

MC type 1 corresponds to vertebral body edema and hypervascularity, whereas MC types 2 and 3 represent fatty replacements of the red bone marrow and subchondral bone sclerosis, respectively. It is thought that the edema and inflammation present in type 1 may be related to instability and could be a sign of pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion surgery.[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] MC type 1 was also found to be associated with segmental hypermobility by other authors, although some others did not show this association.[16],[17],[23]

LFE was associated with LGDDD in our study, and we believed that this is due to a tendency toward facet joint ankylosis in HGDDD.[4] Thus, LFE might be seen in a more initial phase of degeneration cascade. However, LFE did not reach a significant association with instability both in the LGDDD and HGDDD subgroups. Additionally, LGDDD was not related to instability. Grogan grades of facet degeneration (cartilage degeneration and subchondral sclerosis) were also not significantly related with LFE or instability, making this theory less probable in light of our findings. Cho et al.[7] showed that the mean disc and facet joint degeneration was higher in the stable group than in the unstable one. Lattig et al.[4] reported that the degree of facet joint osteoarthritis was significantly greater in the group without segmental hypermobility.

It is thought that increased sagittal lumbar facet orientation would correlate with increased incidence of degenerative spondylolisthesis as it would allow for a greater range of flexion motion.[8],[10],[24] The association between facet orientation and instability did not reach statistical significance in our study, while Lattig et al.[4] found a lower mean facet joint angle in the group of patients with instability.

This article has some limitations. Probably, the main limitation is regarding the laterality as we recorded the highest score of both sides in each classification. For example, a level with a LFE in one side but SFE in the other one was recorded as a LFE spinal level. It may lead to some bias in our results. Some authors advocate the term “micro instability,” which refers to an initial phase of the degenerative cascade in which anatomopathological features and mechanical low back pain would be present, but with the absence of spondylolisthesis in the dynamic x-rays.[25] If this clinical entity was actually real, our study would not be able to diagnose neither its presence nor its association with facet effusions. Another limitation is that the difference of facet orientation between both sides, also known as facet joint tropism, may be related to lumbar disk herniation or rotatory hypermobility instead of flexion-extension one, but it was not assessed in our study.[4],[8],[10] The prevalence of lumbar synovial cysts found in our study was similar to that published before by other authors.[26] Finally, as this research was carried out with images of non-operated patients, we could not compare the outcome of a decompression without fusion between patients with LFE or SFE.


 » Conclusion Top


LFE was not associated with instability in this study, whereas the existence of MC type 1 reached that association. The presence of LFE and/or MC type 1 may act as red flags in patients with L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis in order to suspect segmental instability as both image findings achieved a statistically significant association with instability within this subset. However, more studies are needed to confirm the findings.

Declaration of patient consent

Full and detailed consent from the patient/guardian has been taken. The patient's identity has been adequately anonymized. If anything related to the patient's identity is shown, adequate consent has been taken from the patient/relative/guardian. The journal will not be responsible for any medico-legal issues arising out of issues related to the patient's identity or any other issues arising from the public display of the video.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Chaput C, Padon D, Rush J, Lenehan E, Rahm M. The significance of increased fluid signal on magnetic resonance imaging in lumbar facets in relationship to degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1883-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Tamai K, Kato M, Konishi S, Matsumura A, Hayashi K, Nakamura H. Facet effusion without radiographic instability has no effect on the outcome of minimally invasive decompression surgery. Global Spine J 2017;7:21-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Fernandes Junior MA, Vialle EN, Pinto RL, Nanni FN, Vialle LR. Image correlation between facet effusion and lumbar instability. Coluna 2019;18:205-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Lattig F, Fekete TF, Grob D, Kleinstück FS, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF. Lumbar facet joint effusion in MRI: A sign of instability in degenerative spondylolisthesis? Eur Spine J 2012;21:276-81.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Lattig F, Fekete TF, Kleinstück FS, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF. Lumbar facet joint effusion on MRI as a sign of unstable degenerative spondylolisthesis: Should it influence the treatment decision? J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:95-100.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Rihn JA, Lee JY, Khan M, Ulibarri JA, Tannoury C, Donaldson WF 3rd, et al. Does lumbar facet fluid detected on magnetic resonance imaging correlate with radiographic instability in patients with degenerative lumbar disease? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1555-60.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Cho IY, Park SY, Park JH, Suh SW, Lee SH. MRI findings of lumbar spine instability in degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2017;25. doi: 10.1177/2309499017718907.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Schinnerer KA. Magnetic resonance findings of exaggerated fluid in facet joints predicts instability. Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library; 2008. Available from: http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ymtdl/457. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 10].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Hipp JA, Guyer RD, Zigler JE, Ohnmeiss DD, Wharton ND. Development of a novel radiographic measure of lumbar instability and validation using the facet fluid sign. Int J Spine Surg 2015;9:37. doi: 10.14444/2037.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Perolat R, Kastler A, Nicot B, Pellat JM, Tahon F, Attye A, et al. Facet joint syndrome: From diagnosis to interventional management. Insights Imaging 2018;9:773-89.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Shinto K, Minamide A, Hashizume H, Oka H, Matsudaira K, Iwahashi H, et al. Prevalence of facet effusion and its relationship with lumbar spondylolisthesis and low back pain: The Wakayama spine study. J Pain Res 2019;12:3521-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan HF. Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;165:110-23.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Zhang YH, Zhao CQ, Jiang LS, Chen XD, Dai LY. Modic changes: A systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2008;17:1289-99.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Lang P, Chafetz N, Genant HK, Morris JM. Lumbar spinal fusion. Assessment of functional stability with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 1990;15:581-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Buttermann GR, Heithoff KB, Ogilvie JW, Transfeldt EE, Cohen M. Vertebral body MRI related to lumbar fusion results. Eur Spine J. 1997;6:115-20.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Toyone T, Takahashi K, Kitahara H, Yamagata M, Murakami M, Moriya H. Vertebral bone-marrow changes in degenerative lumbar disc disease: An MRI study of 74 patients with low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76:757-64.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Rahme R, Moussa R. The modic vertebral endplate and marrow changes: Pathologic significance and relation to low back pain and segmental instability of the lumbar spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:838-42.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Schaller B. Failed back surgery syndrome: The role of symptomatic segmental single-level instability after lumbar microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J 2004;13:193-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1873-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Grogan J, Nowicki BH, Schmidt TA, Haughton VM. Lumbar facet joint tropism does not accelerate degeneration of the facet joints. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1325-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Beazell JR, Mullins M, Grindstaff TL. Lumbar instability: An evolving and challenging concept. J Man Manip Ther 2010;18:9-14.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Gopinath P. Lumbar segmental instability: Points to ponder. J Orthop 2015;12:165-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Bram J, Zanetti M, Min K, Hodler J. MR abnormalities of the intervertebral disks and adjacent bone marrow as predictors of segmental instability of the lumbar spine. Acta Radiol 1998;39:18-23.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Jelec V, Turner R, Franić M, Korušić A, Rotim K. Facet orientation and tropism: Association with accelerated degeneration of stabilizing structures in lower lumbar spine. Acta Clin Croat 2016;55:117-24.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Landi A, Gregori F, Mancarella C, Maiola V, Maccari E, Marotta N, et al. Lumbar spinal degnerative “microinstability”: Hype or hope? Proposal of a new classification to detect it and to assess surgical treatment. Eur Spine J 2015;24(Suppl 7):872-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Khan AM, Girardi F. Spinal lumbar sinovial cysts. Diagnosis and management challenge. Eur Spine J 2006;15:1176-82.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Singh V, Rustagi T, Mahajan R, Priyadarshini M, Das K. Ligamentum Flavum Cyst: Rare Presentation Report and Literature Review. Neurol India 2020;68:1207-1210.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
28.
Yerramneni VK, Kanala RR, Kolpakawar S, Yerragunta T. MITLIF Operative Nuances- Step by Step. Neurol India 2021;69:1196-1199.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
29.
Kandregula S, Guthikonda B. Minimally Invasive TLIF. Neurol India 2021;69:1141.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
30.
Ravikanth R. Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Lumbar Disc Degenerative Disease as an Implication of Low Back Pain: A Prospective Analysis. Neurol India 2020;68:1378-1384.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Kim HS, Wu PH, Raorane HD, Jang IT. Generation Change of Practice in Spinal Surgery: Can Endoscopic Spine Surgery Expand its Indications to Fill in the Role of Conventional Open Spine Surgery in Most of Degenerative Spinal Diseases and Disc Herniations: A Study of 616 Spinal Cases 3 Years. Neurol India 2020;68:1157-1165.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
32.
Gunduz OH. Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection Improves Neuropathic Pain in Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Prospective, Clinical Study. Neurol India 2021;69:910-915.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
33.
Goyal N, Ahuja K, Yadav G, Gupta T, Ifthekar S, Kandwal P. PEEK vs Titanium Cage for Anterior Column Reconstruction in Active Spinal Tuberculosis: A Comparative Study. Neurol India 2021;69:966-972.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
34.
Garg M, Kumar A, Singh PK, Mahalangikar R, Satyarthee GD, Agrawal D, et al. Transpedicular Approach for Corpectomy and Circumferential Arthrodesis in Traumatic Lumbar Vertebral Body Burst Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcome in 35 Patients. Neurol India 2021;69:399-405.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
35.
Amitkumar M, Singh PK, Singh KJ, Khumukcham T, Sawarkar DP, Chandra SP, Kale SS. Surgical Outcome in Spinal Operation in Patients Aged 70 Years and Above. Neurol India 2020;68:45-51.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
36.
Grasso G, Paolini S, Sallì M, Torregrossa F. Lumbar Spinal Fixation Removal by a Minimal Invasive Microscope-Assisted Technique. Case Report with Technical Description. Neurol India 2020;68:1211-1213.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow