Cargando…

Facet joint hypertrophy is a misnomer: A retrospective study

One of the major causes of lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) has been considered facet joint hypertrophy (FJH). However, a previous study asserted that “FJH” is a misnomer because common facet joints are no smaller than degenerative facet joints; however, this hypothesis has not been effectively d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: An, Sang Joon, Seo, Mi Sook, Choi, Soo Il, Lim, Tae-Ha, Shin, So Jin, Kang, Keum Nae, Kim, Young Uk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29901623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011090
Descripción
Sumario:One of the major causes of lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS) has been considered facet joint hypertrophy (FJH). However, a previous study asserted that “FJH” is a misnomer because common facet joints are no smaller than degenerative facet joints; however, this hypothesis has not been effectively demonstrated. Therefore, in order to verify that FJH is a misnomer in patients with LSCS, we devised new morphological parameters that we called facet joint thickness (FJT) and facet joint cross-sectional area (FJA). We collected FJT and FJA data from 114 patients with LSCS. A total of 86 control subjects underwent lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as part of routine medical examinations, and axial T2-weighted MRI images were obtained from all participants. We measured FJT by drawing a line along the facet area and then measuring the narrowest point at L4-L5. We measured FJA as the whole cross-sectional area of the facet joint at the stenotic L4-L5 level. The average FJT was 1.60 ± 0.36 mm in the control group and 1.11 ± 0.32 mm in the LSCS group. The average FJA was 14.46 ± 5.17 mm(2) in the control group and 9.31 ± 3.47 mm(2) in the LSCS group. Patients with LSCS had significantly lower FJTs (P < .001) and FJAs (P < .001). FJH, a misnomer, should be renamed facet joint area narrowing. Using this terminology would eliminate confusion in descriptions of the facet joint.