ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Redundant Nerve Roots of the Cauda Equina, MRI Findings and Postoperative Clinical Outcome: Emphasizing an Overlooked Entity.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI parameters predict central lumbar spinal stenosis combined with redundant nerve roots: a prospective MRI study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Clinical significance of redundant nerve roots in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with percutaneous internal fixation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of caudal block in patients with spinal stenosis accompanied by redundant nerve root syndrome.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective study.
objectiveTo describe the MRI findings of RNRs in patients with low back pain, and observe the imaging findings and the clinical outcome post decompression surgery.
methodsThe lumbar spine MRI of 202 patients (122 females) with proven RNRs were retrospectively reviewed. The morphology and the location of the RNRs in relation to the level of stenosis were described. The level(s), grade and cause of lumbar canal stenosis were recorded. The persistence of symptoms and the imaging findings on follow up post decompression surgery were recorded. The imaging findings were correlated among each other and with patients' demographics.
resultsTwo distinctive morphological appearance of the RNRs were noted: loop (56.4%), and serpentine-shaped. In the majority of the cases the RNRs were located above the level of stenosis (79.7%). Eighteen patients underwent decompression surgery, only 4 patients remained symptomatic post decompression surgery. The RNRs changed in shape and location after decompression surgery. Age was a strong predictor value in the location of the RNRs. There was no correlation between the shape and location of the RNRs, or with the gender of the patients.
conclusionRNRs is not an uncommon finding on lumbar spine MRI with lumbar canal stenosis. Its importance remains a controversy. A common language between the radiologists and the clinicians is mandatory to aid in the management planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.