• Jae Ni Jang, Yumin Song, Jae Won Kim, and Young Uk Kim.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University of Korea College of Medicine, International ST. Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Aug 18; 102 (33): e34873e34873.

AbstractThickened ligamentum flavum has been considered as a major cause of central lumbar spinal canal stenosis (CLSCS). Previous studies have demonstrated that ligamentum flavum thickness (LFT) is correlated with aging, degenerative spinal stenosis, and disc degeneration. Thus, hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum is a major cause of CLSCS, and measurement of LFT has been considered a morphologic parameter in the diagnosis of CLSCS. To our knowledge, comparison of LFT between central and lateral lesions has not been reported. In addition, no research has analyzed best clinical cutoff values of central ligament flavum thickness (CLFT) and lateral ligament flavum thickness (LLFT). This study aimed to compare CLFT with LLFT in patients with CLSCS and further compare the CLFT and LLFT findings between the 2 groups to analyze LFT variation. Both CLFT and LLFT samples were collected from 101 participants with CLSCS and from 103 participants in the control group who underwent lumbar magnetic resonance imaging without evidence of CLSCS. Axial T2-weighted lumbar magnetic resonance scans were acquired at the L4 to 5 facet joint level from each participant. Average CLFT value was 2.25 ± 0.51 mm in the control group and 4.02 ± 0.74 mm in the CLSCS group. Average LLFT value was 2.50 ± 0.51 mm in the control group and 3.38 ± 0.66 mm in the CLSCS group. CLSCS patients had significantly higher CLFT and LLFT (both P < .001). Regarding the validity of both CLFT and LLFT as predictors of CLSCS, a receiver operating characteristic estimation revealed that the most suitable cutoff value for CLFT was 3.10 mm, with sensitivity of 95.0%, specificity of 94.2%, and an area under the curve of 0.97. The best cut-off value of LLFT was 2.92 mm, with sensitivity of 78.2%, specificity of 77.7%, and area under the curve of 0.87. We have 4 important new findings: The mean CLFT is significantly lower than that of the mean LLFT in the normal control group; CLFT and LLFT are both significantly associated with CLSCS; Increase rate of CLFT is faster than that of LLFT in the CLSCS group; and CLFT is a more sensitive measurement parameter to predict CLSCS than LLFT.Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

17 keywords...

hide…