Brain & spine · 2026
Is flexion-extension imaging necessary for surgical decision-making in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis? Supine MRI and upright radiographs offer superior diagnostic value.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Folkerts T, Schönnagel L, Bürck L, Muellner M, Labbus K, Khakzad T, Pumberger M, Schömig F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) is a major indication for lumbar surgery. Surgical decision-making, particularly regarding the need for fusion, often depends on radiographic detection of segmental instability. Flexion-extension (FE) radiographs remain the reference standard but are limited by radiation exposure, motion-related discomfort, and poor reproducibility, whereas upright-supine (US) imaging - combining upright lateral radiographs with supine MRI - may offer a comparable, low-radiation alternative using routinely acquired images.
RESEARCH QUESTION: To compare segmental motion at L4/5 between FE and US imaging and evaluate their respective abilities to identify patients with radiographic signs of instability.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 128 patients surgically treated for isolated L4/5 DLS were included. Segmental motion was analyzed using FE and US imaging by determining relative slippage, dynamic slip angle, and radiographic instability, defined as sagittal translation ≥8% and/or a dynamic slip angle ≥10°.
RESULTS: Relative slippage was comparable between US and FE imaging (US: 7.43 ± 5.10%; FE: 7.29 ± 4.57%; p = 0.994). The dynamic slip angle was significantly higher in US imaging compared to FE imaging (US: 6.42 ± 4.20°; FE: 4.03 ± 2.98°; p < 0.001). US imaging identified more patients with radiographic signs of instability compared to FE imaging (US: n = 68, 53.1%; FE: n = 42, 32.8%; p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: US imaging identified a higher proportion of patients meeting established thresholds for radiographic instability compared to FE radiographs. Although FE imaging remains the diagnostic standard, US imaging may offer a practical, low-radiation alternative for preoperative assessment. Prospective investigations are warranted to confirm its clinical utility.
RESEARCH QUESTION: To compare segmental motion at L4/5 between FE and US imaging and evaluate their respective abilities to identify patients with radiographic signs of instability.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 128 patients surgically treated for isolated L4/5 DLS were included. Segmental motion was analyzed using FE and US imaging by determining relative slippage, dynamic slip angle, and radiographic instability, defined as sagittal translation ≥8% and/or a dynamic slip angle ≥10°.
RESULTS: Relative slippage was comparable between US and FE imaging (US: 7.43 ± 5.10%; FE: 7.29 ± 4.57%; p = 0.994). The dynamic slip angle was significantly higher in US imaging compared to FE imaging (US: 6.42 ± 4.20°; FE: 4.03 ± 2.98°; p < 0.001). US imaging identified more patients with radiographic signs of instability compared to FE imaging (US: n = 68, 53.1%; FE: n = 42, 32.8%; p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: US imaging identified a higher proportion of patients meeting established thresholds for radiographic instability compared to FE radiographs. Although FE imaging remains the diagnostic standard, US imaging may offer a practical, low-radiation alternative for preoperative assessment. Prospective investigations are warranted to confirm its clinical utility.