THE UNDERLYING PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND CLINICAL APPEARANCE OF LSS, AND THE AVAILABLE DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS

The term lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) refers to the narrowing of the spinal canal due to anatomical reasons, and it is linked to a variety of clinical symptoms.The onset of stenosis LSS can be unilateral or bilateral, monosegmental or multisegmental. The stenosis can be characterized as central, lateral, or foraminal anatomically.Neurogenic claudication is the most prevalent symptom of LSS, which is defined as limping or cramping lumbar pain that spreads into the legs primarily during walking.Typical patient symptoms include unilateral or bilateral (exertional) back and leg discomfort that develops over months, if not years.As people live longer and seek a better quality of life, as well as increased knowledge of the condition and the availability of improved imaging techniques, the number of people diagnosed with degenerative LSS has increased.


528
6. Patients' mood and happiness must be assessed, since these can differ significantly between patients with LSS and healthy controls, influencing diagnostic and treatment options. 7. Patient-reported symptoms, even if they are fleeting, should be taken seriously during the diagnosis process, particularly during early visits.

Diagnosis
As people live longer and seek a better quality of life, as well as increased knowledge of the condition and the availability of improved imaging techniques, the number of people diagnosed with degenerative LSS has increased. However, because the symptoms of LSS might be similar to those of other disorders, it can be difficult to identify. Various comorbidities, which are common in the elderly population, can, on the other hand, cause secondary stenosis or mimic its symptoms. As a result, distinguishing LSS from a variety of other diseases is critical. At rest, clinical symptoms of LSS are generally absent. Furthermore, determining whether pain (and other patient-reported symptoms) is related to LSS or to other causes might be challenging (for example, instability, facet joint arthrosis, osteoporosis, arthritis, or diabetic polyneuropathy). As a result, the only way to diagnose LSS is to use a combination of clinical history, physical examination, and radiological abnormalities [31,32].

Differential diagnoses
Hyposensibility caused by peripheral neuropathies, in contrast to LSS, usually has a bilateral distal stockingshaped pattern, regardless of posture, rest, or physical stress. When standing or walking, iliosacral joint disease might mimic LSS, with low back pain extending to the buttocks and thighs. Unlike LSS, however, iliosacral joint discomfort is accompanied with joint tenderness. Caudaequina syndrome, which includes sacral hypesthesia, loss of tendon reflexes in the lower limbs, and incontinence, is only seen in rare situations as a result of LSS. The sacral nerves are well protected from compression due to their central location within the caudaequina, hence sphincter involvement is uncommon in LSS. Cervical or thoracic myelopathy must be ruled out in patients with vesicorectal voiding and upper motor neuron symptoms (such as Babinski's reflex and hyperreflexia) [33].

Neuroradiological assessment
Some intrinsic issues with imaging of the lumbar spinal canal must be recognized while doing radiological examination of LSS. For starters, imaging of symptomatic patients is complicated by the fact that degenerative changes in the lumbar spine are common in the asymptomatic population: 20% of persons over 60 years old will show symptoms of LSS. Second, imaging has a tendency to overestimate significant degenerative alterations in the spinal canal and their implications [33].As a result, radiologically diagnosed LSS frequently detects more segments of the body than clinically suspected. A tentative diagnosis of LSS can be made in the vast majority of instances based on the clinical appearance of the disorder and the patient's medical history. When any type of interventional or surgical therapy is being considered, imaging is often used selectively. Specifically, imaging is most commonly employed in patients with moderate to severe LSS symptoms [34].The goal of imaging in presurgical patients with LSS symptoms is to confirm the existence or absence of LSS, rule out other diagnoses, link congesting symptoms to osseous and discoligamentous structures, and pinpoint the specific location of LSS for precise presurgical planning [35]. As previously stated, LSS is primarily caused by degenerative disc disease, at least at first. The various imaging modalities used can visualize morphological abnormalities such as loss of disc height, disc signal, bulging discs, disc herniations, reactive endplate and bone marrow changes, and spondylophytes to varying degrees. Hypertrophic facet degeneration, as well as inwardly buckled and hypertrophied ligamentaflava, result from increased load on the facet joints. Central, lateral, or foraminal stenosis can result from these modifications.

MRI
For the radiological examination of LSS, MRI is the chosen imaging modality. When compared to other imaging modalities, this approach gives higher soft-tissue contrast, has multiplanar imaging capabilities, and does not emit ionizing radiation. However, MRI is contraindicated or impossible to perform in individuals with pacemakers, some other forms of metal implants, or claustrophobia. T1 and T2 weighted images are frequently orthogonal in MRIs of patients with LSS (sagittal and axial). The use of a fat-suppressed T2 weighted sequence appears to enable for more precise detection of related degenerative bone marrow alterations. 'Myelography-like' pictures of the thecal sac, intrathecal and intraforaminal nerve roots and the spinal cord can be generated noninvasively using T2-weighted imaging and the inherent signal intensity of cerebrospinal fluid. LSS can be monosegmental or manifest itself on numerous levels. MRI, like CT imaging, can identify the osseous and discoligamentous structures that contribute to LSS. Despite the fact that the anatomy of the spine is depicted in great detail, research on the clinical utility of the information obtained by MRI has yielded mixed results [36][37][38]. According to the findings of a study conducted by 529 modic and colleagues in patients with radiculopathy, low back pain, and sciatica, changes detected by MRI offer little or no therapeutically meaningful information to clinical assessment alone in terms of prognosis and predicting surgery outcome [37,39].Unless previous surgery has been performed and fibroid scar tissue must be detected by its contrast enhancement, gadolinium-based contrast media are not generally required for imaging of LSS [40,41]. However, other investigations suggest that contrastenhancedmrI may have a superior role in LSS patients with neurogenic claudication, as augmentation of compressed nerve roots can be seen in a minority of these patients [42][43][44]. This improvement could be due to clogged periradicular veins, showing venous stasis, or a breakdown of the blood-nerve barrier, indicating chronic compressive radiculitis. Magnetic resonance (mr) myelography can be conducted noninvasively and without contrast administration using strongly T2 weighted fat suppressed sequences.
Despite the ability of this technique to accurately display the thecal sac, investigations on the efficacy of this sequence have produced mixed findings [45,46]. As a result, the use of mrmyelography is only recommended as a supplement to conventional MRI. Open MRI is currently the sole technology that allows for a functional assessment of spinal flexion and extension while axial loading is applied, or even in the supine position [47].
CT scanning CT scans are quick and accurate, allowing for detailed examination of the spinal canal and discrimination between disc, ligament, and bony structure compression. In terms of the latter, this method outperforms MRI. CT is currently performed with a spiral multislice approach, which acquires isotropic data enabling multiplanar reformatting in any desired plane and threedimensional reconstructions. Multisegmental imaging in one plane is thus conceivable even with significant torsion scoliosis, which is not possible with MRI. Because these structures have similar densities to the cerebrospinal fluid, CT cannot image intrathecal nerve roots or the spinal cord. The use of CT myelography may be able to solve this problem. CT myelography is a procedure that involves spiral CT imaging after inthecal iodine delivery, which is usually done under fluoroscopic guidance. Lumbar puncture can be done under CT guidance in rare cases of significant degenerative or postsurgical alterations. Even in patients who cannot be examined by other means, CT-guided puncture of the thecal sac is a reliable approach. In patients for whom MRI is contraindicated, MRI results are inconclusive, or clinical complaints do not correspond well with MRI findings, CT and CT myelography may be recommended [47]. Furthermore, CT techniques may be employed for presurgical planning in circumstances when good depiction of bone anatomy is required.

Conventional X-rays and myelography
The use of routinely collected plain radiographs in the first assessment of individuals with LSS has been called into question [48,49]. Indeed, the rules for the agency for Health Care Policy and Research no longer include the gathering of such radiographs. Many patients, on the other hand, have traditional radiography performed as part of their initial evaluation because it is a low-cost and simple procedure. Conventional radiographs may be useful in determining the contribution of bone degeneration to LSS and the alignment of the vertebral bodies in the lateral and coronal planes, but only to a limited extent. This approach can also be used to rule out traumatic alterations or other unexpected findings as differential diagnoses (for example, Paget disease, spondylodiscitis, or scoliosis). Plain radiographs taken 50 days following surgery are helpful in establishing the integrity and proper position of fusion material, as well as detecting evidence of loosening of implanted fixating plates and/or screws. Plain radiographs were reported to have a sensitivity and specificity of 66 percent and 98 percent, respectively, when it came to the contribution of bony alterations to central spinal stenosis. Additional lateral radiographs in flexion and extension positions (so-called functional radiographs) are not usually necessary to rule out segmental instability since symptoms of segmental instability can be seen with adequate accuracy on conventional lateral radiographs [51]. Furthermore, according to a recent study, these new perspectives provided no significant benefits. 50 Even in patients who were expected to have segmental instability, the diagnostic significance of lateral radiographs in flexion and extension could not be proven conclusively [52].Traditional functional myelography has long been the gold standard for diagnosing LSS and is still useful for determining the impact of hyperextension and hyperflexion on the stenosis's extent. This technique may still be the only standard way for determining the morphological correlates of a functioning, posture-dependent, symptomatic LSS. Furthermore, for patients with spinal metallic implants, which can generate artifacts on mrI and CT, it is the sole correct imaging approach. Furthermore, standard functional myelography allows the lumber spine to be assessed while standing, and thus under normal body weight stress. Conventional myelography is an intrusive procedure that requires the introduction of an iodinated contrast agent intravenously. As a result, it is linked to side effects include postpunctional headaches and rare life-threatening consequences such allergic responses and spinal infections. Conventional myelography, like other imaging procedures, frequently finds abnormalities that were not detected clinically. The block of contrast flow, which is a good predictor of the favorable outcome of decompression surgery, is one of the few solid prognostic indicators 530 [53].The inability of conventional myelography to detect the etiology of block or compression, as well as to visualize extrathecal nerve root compression, limits it. As a result, this approach is frequently paired with a CT scan conducted after myelography (postmyelographic CT), which compensates for the limitations of this technique. Preoperative surgical planning may need myelography mixed with postmyelographic CT to assess the thecal sac and the bone condition of the operating area. In conclusion, recent investigations have revealed that traditional myelography, CT myelography, and mrI have similar diagnostic and predictive values [54]. When evaluating imaging modalities, keep in mind that the radiological degree of LSS, both before and after surgery, does not always correlate with the severity of clinical signs and symptoms [54][55][56][57][58].

Additional diagnostics
Selective diagnostic injections may be effective in some patients to quantify the contribution of various pain components to the patient's overall health, particularly in the context of chronic pain psychology. 1. If vascular etiology is suspected, noninvasive diagnostic approaches include calculating the ratio of systolic blood pressure in the ankles to that in the arms (ankle-brachial index), which is abnormal when the result is less than 0.5. 2. Routine duplex Doppler angiography, contrast-enhancedmr angiography, and-in rare circumstances before intervention-digital subtraction angiography can also be used to assess whether vascular genesis is involved in generating pain. An electrophysiological study is only indicated to rule out other illnesses, especially if the distribution of pain and numbness is atypical, due to the limited practical value of classical electromyograghy and nerve conduction investigations in diagnosing LSS (for example, suspicion of peripheral polyneuropathy or myopathy, which might both occur concomitantly with LSS) [55,56]. Although this approach is not yet prevalent in regular practice, walking on a treadmill is an acceptable provocation test for such assessments [55,56]. Routine laboratory tests can be used to diagnose comorbidities such as diabetes or diabetic polyneuropathy (through glucose and Hba1c detection) and infections like spondylodiscitis (by C-reactive protein measurement).

Therapy
Because degenerative LSS is a progressive disorder, entirely curing it is improbable; hence the major goal of any treatment is to minimize the severity of the symptoms. Pain (bothersome indices) and physical function have been the key end targets of contemporary interventional techniques [57]. In the majority of patients, the indications for intervention are not absolute. However, if you have caudaequina syndrome or related paresis, you should get medical help right once.The selection of a suitable method is challenging due to the significant pathological and clinical heterogeneity of LSS, the lack of treatment guidelines, and the huge number of different therapies. 4 Prospective, randomized trials comparing different therapy are desperately needed [58,59]. The significant economic impact of low back pain, which is projected to surpass uS$100 billion, reflects the need for effective therapy for LSS, with lost productivity at work accounting for the bulk of the overall expenses [60].

Natural disease course
LSS is a degenerative illness that progresses slowly over time, and the neurological abnormalities are minor during the majority of the disease's clinical course. LSS is typically diagnosed in adults over the age of 50 for these reasons. There are, however, no prospective long-term studies that track the normal progression of symptoms over time [58]. This complicates the beginning and selection of a specific therapy; as such decisions should ideally be based on an assessment of the condition's natural course. In several intervention trials, only limited data is available from untreated individuals in subgroups. The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPorT) found that most patients in the conservatively treated control group saw no worsening of symptoms over the course of two years. Another study indicated that in 20% of untreated instances, the intensity of symptoms increased, while another study concentrating on pain development over almost 5 years found that 70% of patients' clinical symptoms reached a plateau, 15% suffered pain aggravation, and 15% spontaneously recovered [59]. Given the commonality of long-term clinical stability in LSS, acute exacerbations of symptoms should not be mistaken for a shift in the patient's trajectory.

Conservative therapy
Physical therapy, ergotherapy, behavioral therapy, delordosing orthopedic devices, girdles, acupuncture, manual therapy, and pharmaceutical intervention are among the conservative treatments for LSS [60]. Few studies have been completed to establish the efficacy of conservative therapy in the treatment of LSS, although those that have done so have claimed success rates of up to 70% [61][62][63]. However, none of the trials available give enough evidence to establish the superiority, or even efficacy, of any of the several conservative therapies [64].In the 531 absence of evidence-based treatment recommendations, a multidisciplinary, intensive approach should be prioritized above a single therapy [64,65]. Flexion, distraction, neural mobilization, and alleviation of the afflicted segments are the goals of appropriate physiotherapy and manual therapy procedures, as well as improvements in paravertebral muscle tone through the use of stabilizing exercises [61,66]. Bed rest is not indicated in the treatment of chronic or acute pain, according to most experts. 64 Individualized advice is critical in LSS, especially in instances with minor symptoms, because a modest change in one's behavior might be enough to stabilize or improve the disease. The pharmaceutical component of conservative therapy is equivalent to the drug used to treat a disc protrusion and is used to ease painful nerve root disorders (herniation). NSAIDs, various peripheral analgesics, steroids, muscle relaxants, opioids, antidepressants, and, in the most severe instances when quality of life is compromised, neuroleptics are used to treat LSS. Weekly therapeutic injections, in addition to oral medicine, can provide short-to medium-term relief. In epidural, deep paravertebral, pararadicular, and facet joint injections, steroids are frequently used with local anesthetics. Invasive operations, on the other hand, are linked to an increased risk of infection. The effectiveness of pharmacological regimens has only been studied in a few trials, as has the case with all conservative treatment options. Long-term use of NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, as well as the usage of steroids, antidepressants, and long-acting opioids, cannot be recommended based on evidence [65]. Similarly, there is no evidence for the effectiveness of therapeutic injections for LSS [67][68][69].

Surgery
If a diagnosis of LSS has been made based on consistent findings from the clinical history, physical examination, and radiological evaluation, conservative treatment should be used for 3-6 months with the goal of obtaining adequate symptom relief. Surgical intervention is advised in individuals who have severe symptoms and functional impairment, unless this technique is contraindicated for other reasons. Clinicians should also keep in mind that some patients, while matching these criteria, simply may not want surgery, while others have false expectations of what surgical techniques can accomplish [70]. In LSS, all surgical treatments are designed to release the entrapped neural components while maintaining the segment's integrity. Such decompression operation frequently results in pain reduction in the legs and, to a lesser extent, in the low back [71].Even if pressure on nerve roots, dura, and blood vessels is properly relieved, the time and amount of recovery is uncertain. Laminectomy and hemilaminectomy, hemilaminotomy, fenestration, foraminotomy, and the implantation of interspinous distraction devices are all decompressive surgical treatments [72,73]. Decompression surgery has a complication rate of 14 percent (during and after the surgical treatment) 57 percent to 35 percent or more [74][75][76]. Fusion surgery, which is more intrusive than decompression surgery and is utilized in situations of instability, is linked to a greater likelihood of complications. Dura vascular lacerations, epidural hematomas, insufficient decompression with severe residual stenosis, instability, and reossification are all common consequences of both decompression and fusion surgery. All of these issues lead to a re-compression of the nerves [75][76][77][78]. Reoperation rates following decompressive surgical operations have been found to vary from 10% to 23% after ten years. In one research [71,79] extra fusion surgeries reduced the incidence of reoperation. Because instability can produce spinal root congestion, additive fusion surgery may be required in situations of instability (vertebral body mobility >3 mm), spondylolisthesis (>5 mm forward movement of a lumbar vertebra relative to one below)80, or scoliosis (lateral curvature of the spine) >20°,81. In the literature, success rates for decompression surgery in instances with LSS range from 40 to 90 percent, depending on a number of criteria such as the kind of decompression, the length of follow-up, the age of the patients, and comorbidities [82][83][84][85][86][87][88]. According to one study, individuals who had a laminotomy were more likely to have a significant improvement in lumbago than those who had a laminectomy. At one year after surgery, a randomized experiment found that bilateral laminotomy provided higher clinical benefit than unilateral laminotomy or laminectomy in individuals with LSS.Another research compared the 1-year outcomes of tissue sparing-also known as undercutting decompression-with those of the more invasive laminectomy operation and found no statistically significant difference. 91 percent of patients who had a unilateral foraminotomy for degenerative foraminal stenosis reported a reduction in leg discomfort, albeit one-third of them also experienced an increase in lumbago. Although a 90-degree excision of the pars interarticularis does not appear to produce segment instability, it may increase the incidence of lumbalgias [89][90][91].For central LSS, laminoplasty is indicated since two-thirds of patients recover after six years [92].Laminoplasty can give satisfactory outcomes, similar to those obtained with additive fusion, even in situations of moderate degenerative spondylolistheses (complicated stenosis) [86]. There is currently no consensus on whether simply the symptomatic level and side should be decompressed, or if additional nonsymptomatic-but clearly confirmed-neighboring stenosesshould be decompressed as well [93][94][95][96]. In general, as with preoperative diagnosis, the paraclinical evaluation of a successful surgical intervention is complicated by the lack of correlation between imaging data and clinical presentation.

Conclusions:-
LSS is becoming a more common diagnosis, and clinicians are treating it in a variety of ways. Clinical experience and developing guidance from trial-based data, which is beginning to meet stringent evidence-based medicine requirements, are used to make treatment decisions. Surgery is frequently indicated for severe LSS with growing neurological impairments and severe neurogenic claudication, although the choice to operate is based on clinical experience rather than scientific data. By suggesting surgery exclusively for the most severe instances of LSS, the available data have been skewed, making the choice between conservative therapy and surgery more difficult. Several metaanalyses have been conducted to compare the efficacy of conservative therapy against surgery. Until recently, metaanalyses (including Cochrane reviews) of surgical treatments for spinal stenosis found insufficient evidence to recommend surgery over nonsurgical therapy. With the release of the maine Lumbar Spine Study, which published the 8-10 year outcome results for conservative versus surgical LSS therapy, the importance of diligent follow-up became clear.For individuals with LSS, short-term (1 year) to mid-term (4 year) data revealed that surgery was more helpful than conservative care. Regardless of the original treatment modality, about half of the patients reported a reduction in low back pain after 8-10 years. The maine Lumbar Spine Study has been criticized for using nonrandomly assigned patients, which has an impact on the degree of evidence obtained by trials. After 4 and 10 years of follow-up, a prospective study discovered a superior clinical outcome following surgery than in a control group receiving conservative therapy. However, because the research was only partially randomized (31 out of 100 patients) and 20% of the enrolled patients were lost to follow-up, the findings can only be classified as level 2b evidence. The authors advocated conservative treatment in the first instance because there was no difference in clinical result between patients who were operated on soon after being diagnosed and those who underwent surgery after first receiving physiotherapy.