Utility of a fulcrum for positioning support during flexion-extension radiographs for assessment of lumbar instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
{"title":"Utility of a fulcrum for positioning support during flexion-extension radiographs for assessment of lumbar instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.","authors":"Fanguo Lin, Zhiqiang Zhou, Zhiwei Li, Bingchen Shan, Zhentao Zhou, Yongming Sun, Xiaozhong Zhou","doi":"10.3171/2022.3.SPINE22192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The authors investigated a new standardized technique for evaluating lumbar stability in lumbar lateral flexion-extension (LFE) radiographs. For patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, a three-part fulcrum with a support platform that included a semiarc leaning tool with armrests, a lifting platform for height adjustment, and a base for stability were used. Standard functional radiographs were used for comparison to determine whether adequate flexion-extension was acquired through use of the fulcrum method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 67 consecutive patients diagnosed with L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. The authors analyzed LFE radiographs taken with the patient supported by a fulcrum (LFEF) and without a fulcrum. Sagittal translation (ST), segmental angulation (SA), posterior opening (PO), change in lumbar lordosis (CLL), and lumbar instability (LI) were measured for comparison using functional radiographs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average value of SA was 5.76° ± 3.72° in LFE and 9.96° ± 4.00° in LFEF radiographs, with a significant difference between them (p < 0.05). ST and PO were also significantly greater in LFEF than in LFE. The detection rate of instability was 10.4% in LFE and 31.3% in LFEF, and the difference was significant. The CLL was 27.31° ± 11.96° in LFE and 37.07° ± 12.963.16° in LFEF, with a significant difference between these values (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with traditional LFE radiographs, the LFEF radiographs significantly improved the detection rate of LI. In addition, this method may reduce patient discomfort during the process of obtaining radiographs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9213,"journal":{"name":"Botanical Gazette","volume":"62 1","pages":"535-540"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Botanical Gazette","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.3.SPINE22192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The authors investigated a new standardized technique for evaluating lumbar stability in lumbar lateral flexion-extension (LFE) radiographs. For patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, a three-part fulcrum with a support platform that included a semiarc leaning tool with armrests, a lifting platform for height adjustment, and a base for stability were used. Standard functional radiographs were used for comparison to determine whether adequate flexion-extension was acquired through use of the fulcrum method.
Methods: A total of 67 consecutive patients diagnosed with L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. The authors analyzed LFE radiographs taken with the patient supported by a fulcrum (LFEF) and without a fulcrum. Sagittal translation (ST), segmental angulation (SA), posterior opening (PO), change in lumbar lordosis (CLL), and lumbar instability (LI) were measured for comparison using functional radiographs.
Results: The average value of SA was 5.76° ± 3.72° in LFE and 9.96° ± 4.00° in LFEF radiographs, with a significant difference between them (p < 0.05). ST and PO were also significantly greater in LFEF than in LFE. The detection rate of instability was 10.4% in LFE and 31.3% in LFEF, and the difference was significant. The CLL was 27.31° ± 11.96° in LFE and 37.07° ± 12.963.16° in LFEF, with a significant difference between these values (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Compared with traditional LFE radiographs, the LFEF radiographs significantly improved the detection rate of LI. In addition, this method may reduce patient discomfort during the process of obtaining radiographs.