Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Advancing NeuroMRI with High-Relaxivity Contrast Agents
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Advancing NeuroMRI with High-Relaxivity Contrast Agents
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates


Improved Turnaround Times | Median time to first decision: 12 days

Research ArticleSpine Imaging and Spine Image-Guided Interventions

Lumbar Root Compression in the Lateral Recess: MR Imaging, Conventional Myelography, and CT Myelography Comparison with Surgical Confirmation

Walter S. Bartynski and Luke Lin
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2003, 24 (3) 348-360;
Walter S. Bartynski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luke Lin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 1.

    Illustrations show development of lateral recess stenosis.

    Column 1, congenital trefoil canal. The lateral recess region becomes progressively narrowed because of either facet or endplate-disk margin degenerative changes. Column 2, acquired trefoil canal. Early facet degenerative changes and hypertrophy in a triangular canal develops a trefoil shape with the root positioned in a lateral recess niche. Progressive disk margin, endplate, or further facet degenerative changes leads to compression of the trapped root. Column 3, acquired angular pinch of the lateral recess. Simultaneous near equal facet, endplate, and disk margin degenerative changes lead to acute angle formation in the corner of the canal and lateral recess region. The root becomes progressively compressed in the lateral recess and may be medially deflected. Column 4, bilateral acquired angular pinch of the lateral recess. Bilateral facet, disk margin, and endplate degenerative changes can narrow the central spinal canal and the lateral recess region. This can produce both central spinal stenosis with cauda equina compression and individual nerve root compression within the abnormal lateral recess.

  • Fig 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 2.

    Illustrations shows grading system for lateral recess stenosis as revealed by myelography and MR imaging.

    A, Grading system for trefoil lateral recess stenosis as revealed by myelography. Grade 0, appearance is normal. Grade 1, some narrowing of the lateral recess, with slight diminution of contrast material in the recess but no nerve root compression. Grade 2, further reduction in the size of the lateral recess, with some objectively identified nerve root flattening and reduced contrast material in the recess. Grade 3, complete obliteration of the lateral recess with a typical thumbprint-like appearance and complete obliteration of contrast material. The nerve root is compressed with visual widening and flattening.

    B, Grading system for trefoil lateral recess stenosis as revealed by MR imaging. Grade 0, appearance is normal. Grade 1, narrowing of the lateral recess but no objective identification of root flattening or compression. Grade 2, further narrowing of the lateral recess with root flattening identified and some preservation of the space lateral to the root in the lateral recess. Grade 3, severe root compression with severe narrowing of the lateral recess and complete obliteration of any CSF space surrounding or lateral to the nerve root.

    C, Grading system for acquired angular pinch lateral recess stenosis as revealed by myelography. Grade 0, appearance is normal. Grade 1, some narrowing of the lateral recess, with reduction of contrast material; some distortion of the anterior and posterolateral margin of the thecal sac due to facet or disk degenerative changes is usually seen. Grade 2, further narrowing of the corner of the canal, with reduction of contrast material in the lateral recess, some medial deflection of the nerve root, and some nerve root flattening due to compression; contrast material is still visualized lateral to the nerve root in the corner of the lateral recess. Grade 3, severe angular lateral recess compression with complete obliteration of contrast material lateral to the nerve root, root flattening and widening due to compression, and some medial root deflection.

    D, Grading system for acquired angular pinch lateral recess stenosis as revealed by MR imaging. Grade 0, appearance is normal. Grade 1, early narrowing of the lateral recess due to anterior degenerative changes from disk bulge or endplate spur and posterolateral degenerative changes due to facet or ligament hypertrophy; nerve root is medially displaced, but no objective evidence of root flattening or compression is noted. Grade 2, further narrowing of the corner of the canal due to endplate, disk, and facet degenerative changes with early root compression identified; root is slightly widened or flattened and may be medially displaced and contrast material is still identified lateral to the nerve root. Grade 3, severe lateral recess impingement with definite root compression, no contrast material identified lateral to the root in the corner of the canal, and some medial root deflection.

  • Fig 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 3.

    Images of a 66-year-old man with left leg pain and weakness.

    A−C, Contiguous axial view T2-weighted MR images obtained at the L4–L5 level. Canal distortion is present on the right at the disk margin. Narrowing of the left lateral recess was judged to be root compression by one observer but only canal distortion by the other observer because of visualization of the roots free within the canal in the left lateral recess region (arrows).

    D, Conventional myelogram shows left lateral recess root compression at L4–L5 (curved arrow). Root compression was confirmed at surgery. The patient achieved complete recovery from leg pain after decompression.

    E−G, Contiguous axial view post-myelogram CT images obtained at the L4–L5 level show slight canal distortion on the right but a normal appearing left lateral recess (arrows), similar to the findings of the MR imaging study. Both observers labeled this left lateral recess as noncompressive (grade 1).

  • Fig 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 4.

    Images of an 82-year-old man with right lower extremity weakness and pain, primarily in the upper leg and thigh. Electromyography suggested right L2, L3, and L4 abnormality.

    A−C, Contiguous axial view T2-weighted MR images obtained at the L3–L4 level. Root compression was identified by one observer at L3–L4 on the right (arrows) but was labeled noncompressive (grade 1) by the second observer. Root compression was also correctly identified on the right by both observers at L2–L3 (grades 2 and 3).

    D, Conventional myelogram shows right-sided root compression at L2–L3 (curved arrow) and L3–L4 (straight arrow), identified and assessed as grades 2 and 3 by both observers. The patient underwent right-sided keyhole decompression at L2–L3 and L3–L4. Severe root compression was surgically identified at both levels, and the patient achieved resolution of leg pain after surgical decompression.

    E−H, Contiguous axial view post-myelogram CT images obtained at the L3–L4 level show slight angular distortion on the right lateral recess (arrows). The nerve roots within the canal are slightly more prominent at this level and may be somewhat edematous. Both observers labeled this lateral recess root compressive (grade 2).

  • Fig 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 5.

    Images of a 70-year-old man with bilateral leg pain and weakness, with reduced sensation in both upper and lower legs.

    A−C, Contiguous axial view T2-weighted MR images show a trefoil-shaped canal at L2–L3 that was judged to be root compression (grade 2) on the right by one observer because of the small recess size but was judged to be noncompressive (grade 0) by the other observer (arrows).

    D, Conventional myelogram shows right-sided root compression at L2–L3 (curved arrow), assessed as grades 2 and 3 by both observers. Compression at L3–L4 was also identified by both observers by using MR imaging and conventional myelography. Surgical findings revealed evidence of root compression on the right at L2–L3 as well as at L3–L4. The patient was free of leg pain at the time of postoperative discharge.

    E−G, Contiguous axial post-myelogram CT images obtained at the L2–L3 level show narrowing of the right lateral recess (arrows) with a normal appearance of the left lateral recess. One observer graded the right lateral recess as abnormal (grade 2), and the second observer graded this recess as narrow but not compressive (grade 1). Observer grading in this instance was reversed between MR imaging and CT myelography. One observer graded the MR imaging findings as root compressive but graded the CT myelography findings as not compressive. The other observer graded the MR imaging findings as compressive but graded the CT myelography findings as narrow but not root compressive.

  • Fig 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 6.

    Images of a 71-year-old female with left leg pain.

    A−C, Contiguous axial view T2-weighted MR images obtained at the L4–L5 level were judged as normal bilaterally and assessed as grades 0 and 1 by both observers (arrows).

    D and E, Conventional oblique and anteroposterior myelogram images were judged grade 2 bilaterally by both observers at L4–L5 (open arrows). Decompressive laminectomy at L4–L5 reported bilateral root compression in the lateral recess at L4–L5. The patient experienced significant improvement in leg pain at the time of discharge.

    F−H, Contiguous axial post-myelogram CT images obtained at the L4–L5 level show some canal asymmetry in the lateral recesses (arrows), with slight distortion of the canal in the lateral recess on the right (G, arrowhead). One observer labeled this distortion as root compressive, whereas the other labeled this level as normal in the lateral recesses bilaterally.

  • Fig 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 7.

    Images of a 56-year-old man with right leg pain and anterior thigh pain. Neurogenic claudication was not present. The patient had a history of surgery at L3–L4 and L4–L5.

    A−C, Contiguous axial view proton density–weighted MR images show a small canal at L2–L3 but no overt evidence of root compression. Both observers labeled this as grades 0 and 1 bilaterally.

    D, Anteroposterior view conventional myelogram obtained with the patient in the prone position shows a relatively normal canal at L2–L3 (arrow).

    E, Lateral view conventional myelogram obtained with the patient in the prone position shows a normal canal at L2–L3 (short arrow).

    F, Lateral view conventional myelogram obtained at the L2–L3 level with the patient in the standing extended position shows reduction in canal size with some posterior defect likely related to buckling of the ligamentum flavum while in extension, leading to some degree of spinal stenosis (arrow). Surgical findings documented lateral recess root compression bilaterally at L2–L3. Postoperatively, the patient achieved moderate recovery of strength and sensation, with improvement in right leg pain by the time of discharge.

    G−J, Contiguous axial post-myelogram CT images obtained at the L2–L3 level show a small canal and slight lateral recess distortion bilaterally (G, arrows). One observer graded this level as small lateral recesses but no root compression (grade 1), and the other observer graded this as root compressive (grade 2).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1:

    Grading system for lateral recess root compression

    GradeMyelographyCT Myelography or MR Imaging
    0NormalNormal
    1Reduced contrast material within the lateral recess, indentation on the dural sac, nerve root is normal and unaffectedReduced size of the corner of the lateral canal or recess; trefoil shape to the lateral recess, either congenital or acquired; early acute angular narrowing of the corner of the canal and thecal sac; nerve root is visualized and not widened, flattened, or altered
    2Reduced contrast material within the lateral recess (not obliterated); indentation on the dural sac; nerve root is flattened, widened, or laterally pinched and medially displaced due to canal corner changesReduced size of the corner of the lateral canal or lateral recess, trefoil shape and narrowing of the lateral recess, angular pinch-like shape and narrowing of the lateral canal and thecal sac, nerve root judged compressed in the small trefoil recess or angled pinch but recess judged not totally obliterated, nerve root may be deviated medially
    3Complete obliteration of contrast material from the lateral recess or corner of the canal; thumbprint-like obliteration of contrast material in the lateral recess; severe lateral pinch of the corner of the canal with obliteration of contrast material at the lateral margin; nerve root is trapped in the thumbprint compression, widened-flattened on the thumbprint, displaced medially and widened and flattened laterally due to lateral canal corner changesSevere facet hypertrophy and disc/end plate changes, no CSF or space identified in the lateral recess or corner of the canal, severe angular pinch of the lateral corner of the canal, root may or may not be clearly visible, root may be seen coursing through the compressed lateral recess, root may be seen as medially displaced
    • View popup
    TABLE 2:

    Identification of root compression in 58 surgically confirmed lateral recesses

    MyelographyCT MyelographyMR Imaging
    Root Compression Grades 2 and 3No Root Compression Grades 0 and 1Root Compression Grades 2 and 3No Root Compression Grades 0 and 1Root Compression Grades 2 and 3No Root Compression Grades 0 and 1
    Reader 154436224117
    Reader 255336224216
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 24 (3)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 24, Issue 3
1 Mar 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lumbar Root Compression in the Lateral Recess: MR Imaging, Conventional Myelography, and CT Myelography Comparison with Surgical Confirmation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Walter S. Bartynski, Luke Lin
Lumbar Root Compression in the Lateral Recess: MR Imaging, Conventional Myelography, and CT Myelography Comparison with Surgical Confirmation
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2003, 24 (3) 348-360;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Lumbar Root Compression in the Lateral Recess: MR Imaging, Conventional Myelography, and CT Myelography Comparison with Surgical Confirmation
Walter S. Bartynski, Luke Lin
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2003, 24 (3) 348-360;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Effective Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Technique With Better Facet Joint Preserving for Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis
  • Adjacent Double-Nerve Root Contributions in Unilateral Lumbar Radiculopathy
  • Observer variation in the evaluation of lumbar herniated discs and root compression: spiral CT compared with MRI
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Dynamic CT Myelography: Patient Positioning
  • Evaluation of SIH MR Scoring Systems in Normals
  • Management Outcomes For VO Spine Biopsy
Show more SPINE IMAGING AND SPINE IMAGE-GUIDED INTERVENTIONS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner
  • Book Reviews

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire