How Do Standing Neutral, Supine Lateral, Standing Flexion, and Standing Extension Radiographs Compare in Detecting the Presence and Magnitude of Stable and Dynamic Spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend standing radiographs as the most appropriate imaging for detecting degenerative spondylolisthesis, although reliable evidence about the standing position is absent. To our knowledge, no studies have compared different radiographic views and pairings to detect the presence and magnitude of stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the percentage of new patients presenting with back or leg pain with stable (3 mm or greater listhesis on standing radiographs) and dynamic (3 mm or greater listhesis difference on standing-supine radiographs) spondylolisthesis? (2) What is the difference in the magnitude of spondylolisthesis between standing and supine radiographs? (3) What is the difference in the magnitude of dynamic translation among flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine radiographic pairs? METHODS: This cross-sectional, diagnostic study was performed at an urban, academic institution between September 2010 and July 2016; 579 patients 40 years or older received a standard radiographic three-view series (standing AP, standing lateral, and supine lateral radiographs) at a new patient visit. Of those individuals, 89% (518 of 579) did not have any of the following: history of spinal surgery, evidence of vertebral fracture, scoliosis greater than 30°, or poor image quality. In the absence of a reliable diagnosis of dynamic spondylolisthesis using this three-view series, patients may have had flexion and extension radiographs, and approximately 6% (31 of 518) had flexion and extension radiographs. A total of 53% (272 of 518) of patients were female, and the patients had a mean age of 60 ± 11 years. Listhesis distance (in mm) was measured by two raters as displacement of the posterior surface of the superior vertebral body in relation to the posterior surface of the inferior vertebral body from L1 to S1; interrater and intrarater reliability, assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients, was 0.91 and 0.86 to 0.95, respectively. The percentage of patients with and the magnitude of stable spondylolisthesis was estimated on and compared between standing neutral and supine lateral radiographs. The ability of common pairs of radiographs (flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine) to detect dynamic spondylolisthesis was assessed. No single radiographic view or pair was considered the gold standard because stable or dynamic listhesis on any radiographic view is often considered positive in clinical practice. RESULTS: Among 518 patients, the percentage of patients with spondylolisthesis was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%) on standing radiographs alone, and the percentage of patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis was 11% (95% CI 8% to 13%) on the standing-supine pair. Standing radiographs detected greater listhesis than supine radiographs did (6.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 4.9 ± 3.8 mm, difference 1.7 mm [95% CI 1.2 to 2.1 mm]; p < 0.001). Among 31 patients, no single radiographic pairing identified all patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis. The listhesis difference detected between flexion-extension was no different from the listhesis difference detected between standing-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.0 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.2 mm [95% CI -0.5 to 1.0 mm]; p = 0.53) and flexion-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.5 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.7 mm [95% CI 0.0 to 1.5]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study supports current clinical guidelines that lateral radiographs should be obtained with patients in the standing position, because all cases of stable spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or greater were detected on standing radiographs alone. Each radiographic pair did not detect different magnitudes of listhesis, and no single pair detected all cases of dynamic spondylolisthesis. Clinical concern for dynamic spondylolisthesis may justify standing neutral, supine lateral, standing flexion, and standing extension views. Future studies could identify and evaluate a set of radiographic views that provides the greatest capacity to diagnose stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Radiation-Induced Painful Neurogenic Hypertrophy Treated With Botulinum Toxin A.

Painful neurogenic hypertrophy is a rare complication of radiation therapy. We report a 27-year-old woman with a history of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the submandibular gland presented with painful twitching of her left shoulder. Electrodiagnostic studies were consistent with a diagnosis of radiation-induced spinal accessory nerve hyperactivity. The patient failed conventional medical therapy. She was treated with an injection of botulinum toxin A, and within 1 month experienced significant relief of symptoms. We thus conclude that Botulinum toxin is a therapeutic option for the pain associated with radiation-induced peripheral nerve hyperactivity.