A great article from ACA Today...
Spinal Stenosis
What is stenosis?
Spinal stenosis is created by the narrowing of the spinal canal. This narrowing may be caused by mechanical problems or by abnormalities in the aging spine. It may or may not result in low-back pain, limping, and a lack of feeling in the legs.
Stenosis is often a degenerative condition. It may exist for years without causing pain or discomfort, but a fall or an accident can trigger characteristic stenotic pain. Numerous factors can cause stenosis, such as thickened ligaments, expanding infection, abscess, a congenital or developmental anomaly, degenerative changes, vertebral fractures or dislocations, or a spinal cord tumor.
How is stenosis diagnosed?
Spinal stenosis can be diagnosed based on the history of symptoms, a physical examination, and imaging tests. An MRI is a very poor predictor of future disability in stenosis. An electrodiagnostic study is more dependable for information on a stenotic spine. To diagnose stenosis caused by an abscess or an infection, blood work analyzed by a laboratory may be required, while vertebral tumors and spinal tumors require finely tuned imaging.
How is stenosis treated?
There are three basic treatment approaches to spinal stenosis: the conservative medical approach, which frequently involves bed rest, analgesics, local heat, and muscle relaxants; the conservative chiropractic approach, which includes manipulation, exercise and self-care techniques; and surgery. The source of the stenosis often dictates the treatment.
Ultimately, stenosis is a chronic condition that cannot be “cured,” but it often can be improved, and improvement can be maintained over the long term. Patients can work with a health care provider, such as a doctor of chiropractic, to reduce symptoms and improve their quality of life.
Signs and Symptoms of Stenosis
• Pseudoclaudication—pain triggered by walking or prolonged standing, which is usually improved by sitting in a forward leaning flexed position
• Numbness, tingling, and hot or cold feelings in the legs
• Muscle weakness and spasms
Chiropractor Fairfax, VA
Important published study using a specific chiropractic method available at our offices:
ReplyDeleteBMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Feb 23;7:16.
A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study.
Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL, Gregory AA, Clary R.
Rhode Island Spine Center, Pawtucket, RI 02860, USA. rispine@aol.com
BACKGROUND: While it is widely held that non-surgical management should be the first line of approach in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), little is known about the efficacy of non-surgical treatments for this condition. Data are needed to determine the most efficacious and safe non-surgical treatment options for patients with LSS. The purpose of this paper is to describe the clinical outcomes of a novel approach to patients with LSS that focuses on distraction manipulation (DM) and neural mobilization (NM). METHODS: This is a prospective consecutive case series with long term follow up (FU) of fifty-seven consecutive patients who were diagnosed with LSS. Two were excluded because of absence of baseline data or failure to remain in treatment to FU. Disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) and pain intensity was measured using the Three Level Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were also asked to rate their perceived percentage improvement. RESULTS: The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to the end to treatment was 65.1%. The mean improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was 5.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was seen in 66.7% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity was 1.6 points. This did not reach the threshold for clinical meaningfulness. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 3.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean duration of FU was 16.5 months. The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to long term FU was 75.6%. The mean improvement in disability was 5.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability was seen in 73.2% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity from baseline to long term FU was 3.0 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 4.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Only two patients went on to require surgery. No major complications to treatment were noted. CONCLUSION: A treatment approach focusing on DM and NM may be useful in bringing about clinically meaningful improvement in disability in patients with LSS.