Important postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings correlated with clinical outcomes to evaluate adequacy and success of decompression surgery–what radiologists need to know: a systematic review

Ifran Saleh; Rahmad Mulyadi; Witantra Dhamar Hutami; Kevin Dilian Suganda

doi:10.31616/asj.2025.0061

Saleh, Mulyadi, Hutami, and Suganda: Important postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings correlated with clinical outcomes to evaluate adequacy and success of decompression surgery–what radiologists need to know: a systematic review

Review Article

Asian Spine Journal 2025;asj.2025.0061.

Online first: September 22, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0061

Important postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings correlated with clinical outcomes to evaluate adequacy and success of decompression surgery–what radiologists need to know: a systematic review

Ifran Saleh¹

, Rahmad Mulyadi²

, Witantra Dhamar Hutami¹

, Kevin Dilian Suganda³

¹Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National Central Public Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

²Department of Radiology, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National Central Public Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

³Department of Radiology, Hasan Sadikin Central Public Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia

Corresponding author: Rahmad Mulyadi, Department of Radiology, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National Central Public Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jalan Pangeran Diponegoro No. 71, Kenari, Senen, Kota Jakarta Pusat, Daerah Khusus Ibukota, Jakarta 10430, Indonesia,
Tel: +62-8558801965, Fax: +62-21-3134 8991, E-mail: dr_rahmad_radiologi@yahoo.com

Received January 29, 2025 Revised June 14, 2025 Accepted June 16, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings—particularly postoperative ones—that correlate with the clinical outcomes to assess the adequacy of decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Few studies have evaluated postoperative MRI findings and their correlation with clinical outcomes following decompression surgery for degenerative LSS. A comprehensive literature search was performed employing search engines. We analyzed postoperative MRI findings to identify those that correlated with clinical outcomes. Our study included 12 articles. Available literature indicated that certain postoperative MRI findings correlated with clinical outcomes and thus reflect the adequacy of decompression surgery. These findings included postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) expansion, amelioration in the grade of stenosis, reversion of nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign), and absence of redundant nerve roots (RNRs). Postoperative MRI indicators—such as DSCA expansion, improved stenosis grade, SedSign reversal, and absence of RNRs—correlate with clinical improvement and should be actively assessed to evaluate the adequacy of decompression surgery in LSS.

Keywords: Spinal stenosis; Lumbar vertebrae; Intervertebral disc degeneration; Review literature as topic; Meta-analysis as topic; Treatment outcome; Patient outcome assessment; Magnetic resonance imaging; Diagnostic imaging

Introduction

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most prevalent degenerative spinal disorder in older adults. The clinical signs include neurogenic claudication, low back pain, and lower extremity paresthesia, which can be refractory to conservative treatment. Refractory LSS patients are treated with decompression surgery, which has been shown to yield superior clinical outcomes compared to conservative treatment [1].

Current literature on postoperative radiologic findings, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), after decompression surgery is limited and inconsistent. Reviewing both normal and abnormal postoperative MRI findings is crucial, especially in patients with postoperative pain. To the authors’ knowledge, few studies have evaluated expected postoperative MRI findings and their correlation with clinical outcomes after decompression surgery. This study aimed to systematically review the best available evidence on MRI findings, particularly postoperative ones that correlate with the clinical outcomes, thereby assessing the adequacy and success of decompression surgery.

Materials and Methods

The authors of this systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria [2]. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between postoperative MRI findings and clinical outcomes in LSS patients who underwent decompression surgery. The systematic literature review commenced with the formulation of research questions guided by the PICO framework (patient/population/problem, comparison, intervention, and outcome). The research question is as follow: (1) Problem: inadequate spinal decompression; (2) Intervention: spinal decompression surgery; (3) Comparison: preoperative versus postoperative MRI findings; and (4) Outcome: clinical outcomes.

Following the formulation of research questions, the next step was to develop a library search strategy. A literature search was performed using keywords and index terms (including MeSH/Medical Subject Headings) across the Cochrane Library, Medline/PubMed, and EBSCOHost databases. The MeSH term used during literature search was “lumbar spinal stenosis” AND “postoperative magnetic resonance imaging.” Boolean operators (AND/OR) were utilized to optimize the search strategy. All aforementioned databases were searched up to June 2024. Additional relevant studies were identified through manual screening of the reference list.

The criteria for inclusion were as follows: (1) study design: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs evaluating the correlation of preoperative and postoperative MRI findings and corresponding clinical outcomes; (2) participants: patients with degenerative LSS requiring decompression surgery with or without spinal instrumentation; (3) intervention: decompression surgery performed with or without instrumentation; and (4) outcomes evaluation: preoperative and postoperative MRI findings alongside corresponding clinical outcomes.

The criteria for exclusion were as follows: (1) cohort studies, review articles and meta-analysis, case reports or case series, and expert opinion; (2) animal or cadaveric studies; and (3) publications not written in English.

The methodological quality of each study obtained from the literature review was assessed using the level of evidence in medicine criteria outlined by Sackett [3]. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed employing the criteria presented in the Cochrane Handbook. Assessment of quality and risk of bias in non-RCT studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration [4].

Results

Literature search

Fig. 1 illustrates the literature search results. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified a total of 12 articles. The initial search yielded 394 articles, including 17 from PubMed/Medline, 29 from EBSCOHost, one from Cochrane Library databases, and 347 from Google Scholar. An additional four articles were identified through cross-references. Three hundred and sixteen articles were excluded based on their titles, 40 articles were excluded based on the abstract, and 17 articles were excluded after full-text review. Six articles were excluded due to duplication. After reviewing the cross-reference, four articles were included. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

Methodological assessment

All the included studies were non-RCT. Quality evaluation of non-RCT studies was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. There were 12 non-RCT studies included in the systematic literature review. All non-RCT studies were good quality studies (Table 2). The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. Of 12 studies, two employed a prospective study design. One study did not specify the type of MRI machine used. Nine studies used a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner, while the other two studies used 0.6 and 1.0 Tesla MRI machines. T2-weighted images were used in all MRI evaluations.

Timing of postoperative MRI evaluation

From the 12 studies obtained, we categorized postoperative MRI into three categories: immediate postoperative, early postoperative period, and late postoperative period. Immediate postoperative MRI was performed in two of the included studies. The early postoperative period, ranging from 3 to 7 days after surgery, was evaluated in four of the included studies. While the late postoperative period, defined as 3 months or more after surgery, were assessed in the remaining studies.

Magnetic resonance imaging findings

Dural sac cross-sectional area expansion

A decline in dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) is linked to degenerative LSS. On axial MRI, DSCA is measured as the narrowest area bounded by an imaginary line drawn around the area between the facet and lamina (Fig. 2). Posterior decompression, performed by a spine surgeon, is intended to alleviate the stenosis and relieve compression of the affected nerves. Successful decompression is typically associated with an expected expansion of the DSCA. Studies reveal that an absolute threshold of DSCA of <70 mm² after decompression surgery elevated the risk of persistent radiculopathy. In contrast, a DSCA of 70 mm² or more accompanied by symptom resolution can be considered indicative of adequate DSCA expansion and, consequently, adequate decompression.

Eight studies examined postoperative DSCA expansion following decompression surgery (Table 3) [5–12]. Only one study reported no correlation between postoperative DSCA expansion and clinical outcomes. The other seven studies demonstrated that significant postoperative DSCA expansion, compared to preoperative values, was correlated with improved clinical outcomes in terms of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), radiculopathy, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain. Additionally, postoperative amelioration of central canal stenosis grade postoperatively was correlated with improved VAS scores [13,14].

Amelioration in the grade of central canal stenosis

Guen et al. developed an MRI-based grading system for central lumbar spinal stenosis [15]. Grade 0 is when there is an absence of LSS, Grade 1 represents mild stenosis, where each cauda equina remains distinctly separated; Grade 2 indicates moderate stenosis, with partial aggregation of the cauda equina; and Grade 3 denotes severe stenosis, where all cauda equina roots appear as a single bundle (Fig. 3) [15]. Only one study examined the association between the amelioration of the grade of central canal stenosis and clinical outcomes (Table 3) [16]. Amelioration of central canal stenosis grade postoperatively was correlated with improved VAS scores.

Reversion of nerve root sedimentation sign

The nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign), observed on axial MRI, was first described by Barz et al. [17]. In patients without LSS, MRI performed in the supine position typically shows sedimentation of the lumbar nerve roots toward the dorsal part of the dural sac due to gravity, a phenomenon defined as a negative SedSign. In LSS patients, the sedimentation of the nerve roots is absent, a finding designated as a positive SedSign (Fig. 4). Reversion of SedSign is defined as the conversion of a positive SedSign into a negative one.

Three studies evaluated the relationship between postoperative reversion of SedSign and clinical outcomes (Table 3) [9,18,19]. Postoperative reversion of SedSign was significantly correlated with improvements in clinical outcomes in terms of VAS, ODI, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores. Persistent postoperative positive SedSign is linked to poorer clinical outcomes. Therefore, postoperative negative SedSign with resolution of symptoms can be considered to be indicative of adequate decompression.

Negative redundant nerve roots

Redundant nerve roots (RNRs) were first described by Cressman and Pawl [20]. A positive finding of RNRs is defined as spinal stenosis due to increased epidural pressure. This increased pressure causes the cauda equina to become tangled, winding, coiled, and tortuous, resulting in a serpiginous appearance on sagittal T2-weighted image MRI (Fig. 5).

Two studies had examined the relationship between postoperative negative RNRs and clinical outcomes (Table 3) [12,21]. The conversion from positive to negative RNRs postoperatively is significantly correlated with improvement of clinical outcomes, whereas the persistence of postoperative RNRs is associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

Discussion

This systematic review of the best available evidence demonstrates that the postoperative MRI findings—particularly DSCA expansion, amelioration in the grade of central canal stenosis, reversion of SedSign, and negative RNRs—correlate with the clinical outcomes and reflect the adequacy and success of decompression surgery.

Adequate decompression is the most crucial factor in the surgical treatment of degenerative LSS. Postoperative measurement of DSCA expansion primarily reflects the degree of decompression achieved in the central canal, while providing limited assessment of the lateral recesses and foraminal stenosis. Only a few studies including those by Lee et al. [22], Siddiqui et al. [23], and Kim and Choi [24] have reported on DSCA expansion as observed on postoperative MRI. Their study revealed following decompression surgery, the cross-section area of the DSCA had been enlarged by 23%. Radiological diagnosis of spinal stenosis is typically established when the affected area is less than 100 mm², with an absolute value of 75 mm² being used as a diagnostic criterion for spinal stenosis [25]. Based on classification criteria, a DSCA greater than 100 mm² is considered normal, 76 to 100 mm² indicates moderate stenosis, while a DSCA less than 76 mm² is classified as severe stenosis [26]. This study indicates that a threshold of DSCA of <70 mm² after decompression surgery elevates the risk of persistent radiculopathy, while a DSCA of 70 mm² or more accompanied by a resolution of symptoms can be considered as indicative of adequate DSCA expansion, and thus adequate decompression. Study by Marie-Hardy et al. [27] suggested that DSCA expansion serves as an indicator of adequate decompression, indicating that significant DSCA enlargement reflects a broad and circumferential decompression.

LSS can be classified into central canal stenosis, lateral recess stenosis, and foraminal stenosis. This may explain why some studies found a correlation between expansion of postoperative DSCA and clinical improvement, while the others reported no such correlation [5]. Hermansen et al. [28] reported a postoperative DSCA expansion after surgical decompression, with an increase to more than twice the preoperative value. However, they did not associate the postoperative DSCA expansion with clinical improvement. Postoperative expansion of the DSCA following decompression surgery is due to the restoration of the original form of the dural sac under the action of intracapsular cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure, relieving the pressure on the epidural vessels [11]. There was no correlation between postoperative DSCA and clinical improvement as assessed by functional outcomes in the study by Hermansen et al. [28]. They concluded that even a modest postoperative increase in DSCA can lead to significant symptom improvement, suggesting that less aggressive decompression may be sufficient. They observed that the mean baseline DSCA for the entire cohort was 52.0 mm² (standard deviation [SD]=21.2). This value increased to a mean of 117.2 mm² (SD=43.3) at the 3-month follow-up and further rose to 127.7 mm² (SD=51.4) after 2 years.

Lumbar spinal stenosis, particularly the central type, is defined when the CSF space on the anterior side is obliterated. Lee et al. [15] developed an MRI-based LSS grading system. According to Lee et al. [15], the stenosis grade is classified into four grades. Grade 0 is when there is an absence of LSS, Grade 1 represents mild stenosis, where each cauda equina remains distinctly separated; Grade 2 indicates moderate stenosis, with partial aggregation of the cauda equina; and Grade 3 denotes severe stenosis, where all cauda equina roots appear as a single bundle [15].

For lateral recess stenosis, the classification criteria are outlined below: (1) Grade 0: no contact between intervertebral disc and nerve root; (2) Grade 1: contact between intervertebral disc and nerve root with no deviation; (3) Grade 2: deviation of the nerve root caused by disc contact; (4) Grade 3: nerve root compression, characterized by a deformed nerve root.

For foraminal stenosis, the classification criteria are as shown below: (1) Grade 0: normal foramina with intact dorsolateral margin side of intervertebral disc; the foraminal epidural fat appears oval or inverted pear-shaped; (2) Grade 1: mild foraminal stenosis with deformation of epidural fat, though the residual fat still completely surrounds the exiting nerve root; (3) Grade 2: severe foraminal stenosis and deformation of the epidural fat, with the residual fat only partially surrounding the exiting nerve root; (4) Grade 3: advanced stenosis with complete obliteration of the epidural fat [26].

According to this review, postoperative improvement in the grade of central canal stenosis was associated with improved clinical outcomes. Therefore, grading of stenosis following decompression surgery can serve as a useful indicator for assessing the adequacy of the decompression.

Positive SedSign occurs when the nerve roots are displaced anteriorly within the thecal sac [29,30]. In degenerative LSS, particularly the central type, anterior displacement of the nerve root is typically caused by the hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum and arthropathy of the facet joints [18]. A positive SedSign may occur due to elevated epidural pressure at the level of LSS. This elevated pressure can lead to tethering of the nerve roots within the spinal canal, producing an appearance suggestive of mechanical entrapment or clamping [17]. A persistent positive SedSign after decompression surgery could indicate an inadequate surgical decompression or may suggest a surgical complication, such as the presence of intradural fat or an intradural cyst due to intraoperative dural tear. The appearance of a new positive SedSign following adequate decompression surgery may indicate a newly developed stenosis in a previously decompressed patient [9].

RNRs result from chronic mechanical compression within the spinal canal in LSS. The nerve roots are progressively displaced from the spinal canal due to the repeated movements of the lumbar spine under these circumstances. Over time, the nerve roots become coiled, elongated, and thickened, ultimately developing a serpentine appearance [21]. The conversion of preoperative positive RNRs to postoperative negative RNRs is significantly correlated with improvement of clinical outcomes, whereas the persistence of postoperative RNRs is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. This indicates that the presence of postoperative negative RNRs is indicative of adequate decompression.

It is important to review both normal and abnormal postoperative MRI findings, especially in patients with persistent postoperative symptoms or signs. The strength of this study is that it is the first systematic review to evaluate MRI findings as a means of assessing the adequacy of surgical decompression in LSS, with a correlation drawn between imaging results and clinical outcomes. However, although this review does not introduce novel MRI findings, it effectively consolidates and synthesizes the existing data on the subject. A limitation of this study is the lack of specification regarding the type of LSS, whether central, lateral recess, or foraminal stenosis. Furthermore, we were unable to perform the analysis on the strength of correlation between each specific postoperative MRI finding and clinical improvement. This limitation should be addressed in future studies to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between specific MRI findings and clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a clinical-radiological condition in which both clinical symptoms and MRI findings are crucial for initial assessment and evaluating postoperative outcomes. To evaluate the sufficiency of decompression surgery in LSS, the presence of postoperative MRI findings such as expansion of the DSCA, amelioration of the grade of stenosis, reversion of nerve roots SedSign, and negative RNRs are correlated with clinical improvement and should be carefully evaluated, especially by radiologists.

Key Points

Certain postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings correlated with clinical outcomes and thus reflect the adequacy of decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
The findings included postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) expansion, amelioration in the grade of stenosis, reversion of nerve root sedimentation sign (SedSign), and absence of redundant nerve roots (RNRs).
Postoperative MRI indicators—such as DSCA expansion, improved stenosis grade, SedSign reversal, and absence of RNRs—correlate with clinical improvement and should be actively assessed to evaluate the adequacy of decompression surgery in LSS.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to say gratitude for Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia and Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National Central Public Hospital and Universitas Padjadjaran for the opportunity to perform the study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: IS, RM, WDH. Data curation: IS, RM, WDH. Formal analysis: IS, RM, WDH. Methodology: IS, RM, WDH. Investigation: IS, RM, WDH. Resources: IS, RM, WDH. Software: IS, RM, WDH. Validation: IS, RM, WDH, KDS. Visualization: IS, RM, WDH, KDS. Writing–original draft: IS, RM, WDH, KDS. Writing–review and editing: IS, RM, WDH, KDS. Funding acquisition: IS, RM, WDH. Project administration: IS, RM, WDH. Supervision: IS, RM, WDH. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1

Flow chart of literature search from electronic databases.

Fig. 2

Measurement of dural sac cross sectional area on axial T2-weighted image magnetic resonance imaging.

Fig. 3

Evaluation of the grading of central lumbar spinal stenosis.

Fig. 4

(A, B) Evaluation of the nerve roots sedimentation sign.

Fig. 5

Redundant nerve roots evaluation on sagittal T2-weighted image magnetic resonance imaging.

Table 1

Characteristic of the included studies

No.	Author	Country	Design	LoE	No. of patients	MRI machine specification	MRI sequence	Contrast usage	Interval between surgery and the postoperative MRI
1.	Hermansen et al. [6] (2023)	Norway	Retrospective study	V	46	Siemens, Erlangen Avanto 1.5 Tesla	Axial T2-weighted image; supine position	Non-contrast	3 mo
2.	Chung et al. [7] (2014)	Korea	Retrospective study	V	103	Magnetom Symphony; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany; 1.5 Tesla	Axial T2-weighted image; supine position	Non-contrast	Within 3 days
3.	Nandakumar et al. [14] (2010)	UK	Prospective study	V	38	FONAR Corp., Melville, NY, USA; 0.6 Tesla	Axial T2-weighted image; erect and supine positions	Non-contrast	24 mo
4.	Akazawa et al. [8] (2019)	Japan	Retrospective study	V	20	Signa HDxt, General Electric Company, Connecticut, USA; 1.5 Tesla	Sagittal and axial T2-weighted images with 4-mm slices; supine position	Non-contrast	1 wk, 3 mo, 24 mo
5.	Yeo et al. [16] (2021)	Korea	Retrospective study	V	87	Ingenia or Achieva, Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA, USA; 3 Tesla or Amira, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany; 1.5 Tesla	T2-weighted axial images; supine position	Non-contrast	Immediately postoperative
6.	Dawood et al. [18] 2013	Egypt	Retrospective study	V	25	GE medical system, HDE 1.5 Tesla	Sagittal T2-weighted images spin echo sequences; supine position	Non-contrast	12 mo
7.	Barz et al. [9] (2017)	Germany	Prospective study	V	30	Siemens Symphony; 1.5 Tesla	T2-weighted transverse layers of 4-mm thickness, 20% gap size; supine position	Non-contrast	3 mo
8.	Zhang et al. [19] (2020)	China	Retrospective study	V	82	Siemens Symphony; 1.5 Tesla	T2-weighted axial images; 4-mm thickness	Non-contrast	12 mo
9.	Futatsugi et al. [10] (2015)	Japan	Retrospective study	V	115	Signa EXCITE; GE, Tokyo, Japan; 1.5 Tesla	T2-weighted axial imaging	Non-contrast	Within 7 days
10.	Xue et al. [11] (2021)	China	Retrospective study	V	52	GE signa; 1.0 T	T2-weighted images; 5-mm thickness
11.	Sun et al. [12] (2023)	China	Retrospective study	V	87	Not stated	T2-weighted axial images; supine position	Non-contrast	Immediately postoperative and at last follow-up (mean 19.9±6.0 mo)
12.	Yokoyama et al. [21] (2014)	Japan	Retrospective study	V	33	Toshiba Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan; 1.5 Tesla	T2-weighted, fast spin-echo axial MR; 4-mm thickness	Non-contrast	7 days

LoE, level of evidence; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MR, magnetic resonance.

Table 2

Assessment of non-randomized controlled trials studies using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Study	Selection				Comparability Outcomes				Study quality

	Representativeness of exposed cohort	Selection of the non-exposed cohort	Ascertainment of exposure	Outcome of interest not present at the start of the study	Cohorts comparable at the basis of design or analysis	Assessment of outcome	Adequacy of duration of follow-up	Adequacy of completeness of follow-up
Hermansen et al. [6] (2023)	*	*			*	*	*	*	Good quality

Chung et al. [7] (2014)	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	Good quality

Nandakumar et al. [14] (2010)	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	Good quality

Akazawa et al. [8] (2019)	*	*	*			*	*	*	Good quality

Yeo et al. [16] (2021)	*	*			*	*	*	*	Good quality

Dawood et al. [18] (2013)									Good quality

Barz et al. [17] (2017)	*	*			*	*	*	*	Good quality

Zhang et al. [19] (2020)	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	Good quality

Futatsugi et al. [10] (2015)	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	Good quality

Xue et al. [11] (2021)	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	Good quality

Sun et al. [12] (2023)	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	Good quality

Yokoyama et al. [21] (2014)	*	*	*			*	*	*	Good quality

Table 3

Correlation of postoperative MRI findings with clinical outcomes

No.	Author	Intervention	Postoperative MRI finding	Clinical outcomes	Result
1	Hermansen et al. [6] (2023)	Decompression by laminarthrectomy	DSCA expansion	ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain	Mean increase of DSCA 80 mm² (101%) postoperatively result in significantly improvement in all clinical outcomes in 83% patients (p<0.05).
2	Chung et al. [7] (2014)	Microsurgical ULBD	DSCA expansion	ODI, VAS	The expansion ratio of DSCA was not correlated to the improvement of VAS and ODI. Correlation coefficient of DSCA expansion and VAS (immediately postoperative: r=–0.025; p=0.803; last follow-up: r=–0.094; p=0.344) and ODI (immediately postoperative: r=–0.080; p=0.420; last follow-up: r=–0.120; p=0.229)
3	Nandakumar et al. [14] (2010)	Interspinous process decompression device	DSCA expansion	ZDQ	The mean expansion of the DSCA was 68 mm² postoperatively (p<0.01). Clinical and DSCA improvement was seen in 56% of patients, clinical improvement with reduced DSCA was seen in 14% patients, same or no clinical improvement with DSCA improvement was seen in 22%, and same or no clinical improvement with DSCA deterioration was seen in 8%.
4	Akazawa et al. [8] (2019)	Interspinous process decompression device	DSCA expansion	VAS back pain, leg pain, leg numbness	In patients with severe stenosis, the mean expansion of DSCA was 33.9±7.5 mm² preoperatively to 60.0±23.1 mm² in 1 week postoperatively, 44.5±13.0 mm² in 3 months postoperatively, and 36.9±10.5 mm² in 2 years after surgery. There was a significant increase in postoperative VAS for leg pain and leg numbness, but not for VAS for back pain. For moderate stenosis, no significant improvement was seen for DSCA expansion and clinical improvement postoperatively.
5	Yeo et al. [16] (2021)	Standard posterior lumbar decompression surgery	Amelioration of central canal stenosis grade	VAS	Significant amelioration in the central canal stenosis grade from 2.62 to 0.72 (p<0.001), 98% of the cases had clinical improvement
6	Dawood et al. [18] (2013)	Central decompressive laminectomy, partial medial facetectomy and foraminotomy	Reversion of SedSign	VAS	In 88% cases of significantly improved VAS after decompression surgery, the SedSign changed from positive to negative
7	Barz et al. [17] (2017)	Decompression with or without instrumented fusion	DSCA expansion, Reversion of SedSign	ODI, VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, walking distance	Reversion of SedSign from postoperatively from positive to negative occurs in 90% patients. Increase in median smallest CSA of the dural sac was 55 mm² (IQR, 45–72) to 148 mm² (IQR, 127–188) postoperatively. Significant improvement in the median ODI of 39 (IQR, 24–54), the median VAS of 5 points (IQR, 5–7), and the median improvement of the walking distance of 890 m (IQR, 500–1,000); (p<0.001)
8	Zhang et al. [19] (2020)	Decompression with instrumented fusion	Reversion of SedSign	ODI, ZCQ, and VAS	81.9% of patients had reversion of SedSign, only 18.2% of patients had persistent positive SedSign. Patients with reversion of SedSign had significantly lower ODI, ZCQ physical function and symptom severity domain, VAS-back, and leg pain than patients with persistent positive SedSign (p<0.05).
9	Futatsugi et al. [10] (2015)	Decompression with or without instrumented fusion	DSCA expansion	Radicular pain	When the postoperative DCSA is <70 mm², the rate of occurrence of radicular pain is 74.3%, which was significantly higher than that when the postoperative DCSA of 70 mm² or more (25%).
10	Xue et al. [11] (2021)	Percutaneous spinal endoscopic decompression	DSCA expansion	VAS for leg pain and back pain, and ODI	Significant mean expansion of DSCA from 125.3±53.9 mm² preoperatively to 201.4±78.0 mm² postoperatively, correlated with significant improvement of back pain VAS from 7.50±0.78 preoperatively to 1.70±0.66 postoperatively, leg pain VAS from 7.30±0.79 preoperatively to 1.74±0.68 postoperatively, and ODI from 72.35±8.15 preoperatively to 16.15±4.51 postoperatively
11	Sun et al. [12] (2023)	Single-segment OLIF combined with percutaneous internal fixation	DSCA expansion, negative RNRs	VAS for back pain and leg pain, and ODI	The mean change of ODI score of −6.07±2.79 occurs when the expansion of DSCA is 0.11±0.16 compared to mean change of ODI score −10.71±5.47 when the expansion of DSCA is 0.41±0.34 (p=0.006). If the RNRs remains positive after surgery, the mean change of ODI score was −6.07±2.79 compared to mean change of −10.71±5.47 if the positive RNRs become negative after surgery (p=0.006). There were no significant differences in the mean change of VAS for back pain and leg.
12	Yokoyama et al. [21] (2014)	Bilateral decompressive laminectomy	Negative RNRs	JOA	Patients with postoperative negative RNRs from preoperatively positive RNR had significantly better postoperative JOA score compared to patients with persistent positive RNRs after decompression surgery (22.6±2.7 vs. 15.8±6.5, p<0.05).

MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; DSCA, dural sac cross-sectional area; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; ULBD, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression;

VAS, Visual Analog Scale; ZCQ, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; SedSign, sedimentation sign; IQR, interquartile range; OLIF, oblique lateral interbody fusion; RNRs, redundant nerve roots; JOA, Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

References

1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:1424–36.

2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10:89.

3. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 1989;95(2 Suppl): 2S–4S.

4. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.

5. Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, et al. Comparable increases in dural sac area after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: radiological results from a randomized controlled trial in the NORDSTEN study. Eur Spine J 2020;29:2254–61.

6. Hermansen E, Myklebust TA, Weber C, et al. Postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area as an association for outcome after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical and radiological results from the NORDSTEN-Spinal Stenosis Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:688–94.

7. Chung SW, Kang MS, Shin YH, Baek OK, Lee SH. Postoperative expansion of dural sac cross-sectional area after unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression: correlation with clinical symptoms. Korean J Spine 2014;11:227–31.

8. Akazawa T, Kotani T, Sakuma T, et al. MRI evaluation of dural sac enlargement by interspinous process spacers in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: does it play a role in the long term? J Orthop Sci 2019;24:979–84.

9. Barz C, Melloh M, Staub LP, et al. Reversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis patients after decompression surgery. Eur Spine J 2017;26:2573–80.

10. Futatsugi T, Takahashi J, Oba H, et al. Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging in detecting radicular pain after lumbar decompression surgery: retrospective study of the relationship between dural sac cross-sectional area and postoperative radicular pain. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:E733–7.

11. Xue J, Chen H, Zhu B, et al. Percutaneous spinal endoscopy with unilateral interlaminar approach to perform bilateral decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: radiographic and clinical assessment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021;22:236.

12. Sun H, Xiong S, Zhang Y, et al. Clinical significance of redundant nerve roots in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with percutaneous internal fixation. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:958.

13. Hermansen E, Moen G, Barstad J, Birketvedt R, Indrekvam K. Laminarthrectomy as a surgical approach for decompressing the spinal canal: assessment of preoperative versus postoperative dural sac cross-sectional areal (DSCSA). Eur Spine J 2013;22:1913–9.

14. Nandakumar A, Clark NA, Peehal JP, et al. The increase in dural sac area is maintained at 2 years after X-stop implantation for the treatment of spinal stenosis with no significant alteration in lumbar spine range of movement. Spine J 2010;10:762–8.

15. Lee GY, Lee JW, Choi HS, Oh KJ, Kang HS. A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40:1033–9.

16. Yeo JB, Lee E, Lee JW, et al. Immediate postoperative MRI findings after lumbar decompression surgery: Correlation of imaging features with clinical outcome. J Clin Neurosci 2021;89:365–74.

17. Barz T, Melloh M, Staub LP, et al. Nerve root sedimentation sign: evaluation of a new radiological sign in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:892–7.

18. Dawood OM, Hassan TA, Mohey N. The MRI finding of the nerve root sedimentation sign: its clinical validity and operative relativity for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2014;45:203–9.

19. Zhang J, Zhang Q, Xia S, et al. Irreversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis after decompression surgery: incidence and risk factors. Res Sq [Preprint] 2020 May 28 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-29922/v1

20. Cressman MR, Pawl RP. Serpentine myelographic defect caused by a redundant nerve root: case report. J Neurosurg 1968;28:391–3.

21. Yokoyama K, Kawanishi M, Yamada M, et al. Clinical significance of postoperative changes in redundant nerve roots after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. World Neurosurg 2014;82:e825–30.

22. Lee J, Hida K, Seki T, Iwasaki Y, Minoru A. An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:72–8.

23. Siddiqui M, Karadimas E, Nicol M, Smith FW, Wardlaw D. Effects of X-STOP device on sagittal lumbar spine kinematics in spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:328–33.

24. Kim HY, Choi BW. Change of radiological parameters after interspinous implantation (X-stop(R)) in degenerative spinal stenosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013;23:281–5.

25. Willén J, Danielson B. The diagnostic effect from axial loading of the lumbar spine during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with degenerative disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2607–14.

26. Sirvanci M, Bhatia M, Ganiyusufoglu KA, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR imaging. Eur Spine J 2008;17:679–85.

27. Marie-Hardy L, Khalife M, Upex P, Riouallon G, Wolff S. Pre- and postoperative MRI analysis of central decompression in MIS fusion with lumbar stenosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2023;109:103222.

28. Hermansen E, Myklebust TA, Austevoll IM, et al. Dural sac cross-sectional area change from preoperatively and up to 2 years after decompressive surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis: investigation of operated levels, data from the NORDSTEN study. Eur Spine J 2024;33:2234–41.

29. Piechota M, Król R, Elias DA, Wawrzynek W, Lekstan A. The nerve root sedimentation sign in diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Radiol 2019;60:634–42.

30. Qian G, Wang Y, Huang J, Wang D, Miao C. Value of nerve root sedimentation sign in diagnosis and surgical indication of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:336.