Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is diagnosed by a history of claudication, clinical investigation, treadmill test, and cross sectional area (CSA) in MRI or CT. Because commonly used radiological findings not always correlate with clinical symptoms, additional parameters with high specificity and sensitivity are needed.

Methods: Prospective study of dorsal lumbar nerve root sedimentation in MRI scans in supine position of 2 groups of 100 consecutive patients each between 01/2007 – 12/2007. Patients in group 1 had non-specific low back pain (LBP), no claudication, and a CSA above 120 mm2 (LBP group); patients in group 2 showed claudication with or without LBP and a CSA below 80 mm2 (LSS group). We excluded patients with a previous spine surgery. In addition to the sedimentation sign, in both groups VAS, ODI, and walking distance in the treadmill test were measured.

Results: The sedimentation sign was positive in 94 patients in the LSS group but in no patient in the LBP group, showing a specificity of 100%, a sensitivity of 94%, and an accuracy of 97%. There was no difference between segmental levels L1 – L5. Walking distance in the LSS group was shorter than in the LBP group (67 m vs. > 1000 m; p< 0.001). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding VAS and ODI.

Conclusion: In patients without LSS during MRI in supine position lumbar nerve roots sediment due to gravity to the dorsal part of the dural sac leading to a positive sedimentation sign. This sedimentation is not observed in patients with LSS. Therefore, a negative sedimentation sign is a predictor of LSS in patients without prior spine surgery with a high specificity and sensitivity. Level S1 and below were excluded in our study because nerve roots S1 and S2 leave the dural sac in a ventral position inhibiting sedimentation to the dorsal part of the dural sac. The sedimentation sign is a reliable additional diagnostic parameter in patients with LSS.

Introduction: Lumbar fusion is one of the most frequently recommended treatments in spinal surgery, whereas ALIF and PLF are discussed controversially. This prospective and consecutive study examined if complications and rehabilitation differed between patients with a degenerated lumbar spine, who had been treated with ALIF or PLF.

Methods: Between 04/2002 and 12/2005 clinical data of 39 patients, who were treated with ALIF, and of 296 patients, who received PLF, were submitted to the European Spine Register SSE Spine Tango. Complications and rehabilitation process were documented after a median follow-up time of 9 weeks (IQR 8–24 weeks). Analysis was performed with non-parametric tests. The study corresponds with an EBM-level 3.

Results: The median age of patients with ALIF was 56 years (IQR 37-66 yrs) vs. 64 yrs in the PLF group (IQR 54–72 yrs) with a male to female ratio 10:29 vs. 108:188.

Patients after ALIF and PLF had an even complication rate (5/39 vs. 26/296, p = 0,41). The types of complications in the ALIF group were less severe (sensory and motoric disturbance vs. implant failure and implant malposition). All five patients needing reintervention belonged to the PLF group. Three quarters of all patients underwent rehabilitation. The proportion of patients with outpatient rehabilitation was higher in the ALIF group (14/39 vs. 50/296 patients, p = 0,05).

Conclusions: Patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease have a less severe type of complications after ALIF than after PLF, whereas the complication rate is even. Concerning the higher proportion of patients with outpatient rehabilitation in the ALIF group, one has to consider their lower age compared with patients in the PLF group. Except for the severeness of complications and the proportion of outpatient rehabilitation one cannot conclude an advantage of either of the two surgical methods.