Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE


Asian Spine J > Online first
Sakaguchi, Tanaka, Borde, Chen, Arataki, Komatsubara, Miyamoto, Tanaka, Takamatsu, Yasuda, and Doană-Prodan: Preoperative erector spinae muscle quality is more important than leg muscle quality for postoperative walking recovery in lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study in Japanese patients

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Purpose

To determine whether preoperative trunk and lower limb muscle quality predicts achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) after lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) surgery.

Overview of Literature

LSS commonly causes intermittent claudication and reduced walking ability. Previous studies have suggested that muscle quality affects postoperative recovery, but its association with clinically meaningful improvements in the 6MWD remains unclear.

Methods

This retrospective study included 150 patients aged ≥60 years who underwent decompression or fusion surgery for LSS at Okayama Rosai Hospital between April 2021 and April 2023. Preoperative assessments included demographic and surgical factors, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) scores, visual analog scale scores, the 6MWD, and computed tomography-based muscle quality. The functional cross-sectional areas of the psoas major, erector spinae (ES), multifidus, gluteus maximus, and gluteus medius were quantified in Hounsfield units. Muscle quality was expressed as the low-attenuation muscle area (LAMA) ratio. Patients were classified according to whether they achieved the MCID (80 m) in the postoperative 6MWD. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of the achievement of the MCID.

Results

Among the 150 patients, 86 (57%) achieved the MCID. Univariate analysis showed that younger age, higher preoperative ZCQ scores, a shorter 6MWD, and lower LAMA ratios of all examined muscles were significantly associated with the achievement of the MCID in postoperative walking ability. In multivariate analysis, younger age (p<0.001), a shorter preoperative 6MWD (p=0.016), and a lower ES LAMA ratio (p<0.001) remained independent predictors. These results indicate that better preoperative ES muscle quality independently contributes to postoperative walking recovery in patients with LSS.

Conclusions

Preoperative younger age, shorter 6MWD, and lower ES LAMA ratio independently predicted meaningful postoperative improvement in walking. Enhancing preoperative ES muscle quality is crucial for postoperative walking recovery in patients with LSS.

Introduction

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent degenerative spinal disorder characterized by narrowing of the spinal canal, which leads to compression of neural elements [1]. This condition often results in symptoms, such as low back pain, leg pain, and neurogenic intermittent claudication, significantly impairing patients’ mobility and quality of life [2]. Patients with severe LSS symptoms may require surgical interventions, such as simple decompression or decompression and fusion [3]. The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test are among the most commonly used clinical evaluation tools for assessing the functional status of LSS [46].
The 6MWD is a reliable measure of walking endurance; however, it is crucial to determine whether observed changes are clinically meaningful. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest change considered meaningful by patients and sufficient to influence clinical decision-making [7]. Achievement of the MCID in the 6MWD following spinal surgery is regarded as a key indicator of functional improvement. In patients with LSS, MCID values for the 6MWD have been reported across various postoperative time points [6,8]. Nevertheless, not all patients attain clinically significant improvements in walking capacity, and the factors influencing the achievement of the MCID have yet to be fully elucidated.
Preoperative muscle quality has been reported to be a significant predictor of postoperative physical function, with lower muscle quality being associated with poor recovery and an increased risk of disability [9,10]. Recent systematic reviews have reported that computed tomography (CT)–based assessments of paraspinal muscle morphology can predict surgical outcomes in patients with LSS [11,12]. Evaluation of the quality of muscles, particularly the trunk and lower limb muscles, has been shown to correlate with clinical outcomes and the progression of disability [12,13]. Despite accumulating evidence on muscle quality and clinical outcomes, the relationship between specific muscle quality parameters and the achievement of the MCID in the 6MWD among patients with LSS remains unclear. A deeper understanding of this relationship may aid in identifying patients at risk for suboptimal recovery and could inform tailored rehabilitation or surgical planning.
Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether preoperative trunk and lower limb muscle quality, assessed by CT, predicts the achievement of the MCID in the 6MWD after LSS surgery.

Materials and Methods

Ethics statement

This study retrospectively analyzed the data of patients treated for LSS at Okayama Rosai Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Okayama, Japan. Approval for the study was obtained from the hospital’s institutional review board (approval number: 527–3; March 10, 2025). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before their enrollment.

Study population

Consecutive patients who underwent decompression or fusion surgery between April 2021 and April 2023 were assessed for eligibility (n=183). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≥60 years; (2) presence of intermittent claudication due to leg pain and/or numbness; (3) availability of patient-reported outcomes using the ZCQ; and (4) provision of written informed consent. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) cervical or thoracic spinal lesions; (2) severe osteoarthritis of the hip or knee; (3) history of neurological disease, pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, or dementia; (4) preoperative ZCQ score of <2 points; (5) preoperative 6MWD of ≥500 m; and (6) incomplete data. Based on these criteria, 150 patients were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1). The following variables were assessed: patient demographics, preoperative surgical factors, ZCQ findings, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, the 6MWD, and the functional cross-sectional areas of the trunk and lower limb muscles.

Patient and surgical factors

Patient factors included age, gender, height, weight, and body mass index. Surgical factors included surgery type, spinal levels operated on (e.g., L1/2–L5/S1), operative time, and intraoperative blood loss.

Schizas classification

LSS severity was assessed on axial magnetic resonance imaging using the Schizas classification [14], which grades stenosis from A to D based on dural sac and nerve root morphology.

Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Disease-specific symptoms and physical function were assessed using the ZCQ symptom severity score (SSS) and physical function score (PFS), respectively [5].

Visual Analog Scale

Pain intensity in the lower back and lower limbs was assessed using a 100-mm VAS, with 0 representing “no pain” and 100 representing “the worst imaginable pain.” Patients were instructed to mark their pain level on the scale at each evaluation time point.

Six-minute walk distance

Walking endurance was measured using the 6MWD. Patients were instructed to walk back and forth along a flat, straight 30-m corridor for 6 minutes at their own pace, with rest allowed, if necessary. The total distance walked was recorded in meters. The MCID for the 6MWD has been reported to be 80 m [6].

Functional cross-sectional areas of the trunk and lower limb muscles

Preoperative lumbar spine and lower limb CT scans were performed with patients positioned supine and the knees slightly flexed, using either an Aquilion PRIME or Aquilion Lightning scanner (Toshiba Medical Systems, Tochigi, Japan). Images were reconstructed in 5-mm slices under a soft-tissue window. Muscle cross-sectional areas were quantified with SYNAPSE VINCENT software ver. 7.0 (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan). Measurements included the psoas major (PM) and erector spinae (ES) at the L3 level, the multifidus (MF) at L4, and the gluteus maximus (GM) and gluteus medius (GMed) at S2 (Fig. 2). The functional muscle area was determined by categorizing voxels according to Hounsfield unit (HU) ranges as follows: low-attenuation muscle area (LAMA; −29 to 29 HU) representing lipid-infiltrated tissue, and normal-attenuation muscle area (NAMA; 30 to 150 HU) corresponding to healthy muscle [15,16]. To normalize for differences in body size and more accurately reflect muscle quality deterioration, the LAMA ratio was calculated as “LAMA/(LAMA+NAMA),” with a higher ratio indicating greater fatty degeneration.

Statistical analysis

Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and it showed that all variables were non-normally distributed. Therefore, the Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test were used for group comparisons. Patients were classified by achievement of the MCID (80 m) in the postoperative 6MWD. Variables found to be significant in univariate logistic regression were entered into a multivariate model, and independent predictors were identified using backward elimination based on the Akaike information criterion. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR ver. 1.61 (Jichi Medical University Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan) [17], with two-sided p-values of <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 150 patients were analyzed, among whom 86 (57%) achieved the MCID in the postoperative 6MWD. The MCID-achieved group was significantly younger than the non-achieved group (71.4±8.0 years vs. 76.0±6.6 years, p<0.001) and had a higher preoperative leg pain score (53.8±30.7 mm vs. 43.8±30.9 mm, p=0.033), ZCQ SSS (3.2±0.5 vs. 3.0±0.7, p=0.019), and ZCQ PFS (2.8±0.6 vs. 2.5±0.6, p<0.001) but a shorter preoperative 6MWD (262.8±105.8 m vs. 303.3±104.2 m, p=0.031) (Table 1).
Analysis of muscle composition showed significantly lower LAMA ratios in the MCID-achieved group than in the non-achieved group across all examined muscles, including the PM (0.1±0.1 vs. 0.2±0.1, p<0.001), ES (0.2±0.2 vs. 0.3±0.2, p<0.001), MF (0.4±0.2 vs. 0.5±0.2, p<0.001), GM (0.4±0.2 vs. 0.5±0.2, p<0.001), and GMed (0.1±0.1 vs. 0.2±0.1, p<0.001), indicating less intramuscular fat infiltration (Table 2).
Univariate logistic regression identified several variables that were significantly associated with the achievement of the MCID, including younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.96; p<0.001), a higher ZCQ SSS (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.07–3.84; p=0.030), a higher ZCQ PFS (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.28–4.12; p<0.001), and a shorter preoperative 6MWD (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99–1.00; p=0.022). In addition, higher LAMA ratios across all muscles were inversely associated with the achievement of the MCID (all p<0.001) (Table 3).
In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.95; p<0.001), a shorter preoperative 6MWD (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99; p=0.016), and a lower ES LAMA ratio (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53–0.86; p<0.001) were identified as independent predictors of the achievement of the MCID (Table 4).

Discussion

In this study, we identified lower preoperative age, a shorter preoperative 6MWD, and a smaller ES LAMA ratio as independent predictors of achieving the MCID in the 6MWD at 12 months after surgery for LSS. The main strength and novelty of this study lie in demonstrating that preoperative trunk muscle quality, rather than lower limb muscle quality, is a key determinant for achieving a significant improvement in walking ability after LSS surgery. Specifically, a lower degree of fat infiltration in the ES, reflected by a smaller LAMA ratio, was associated with achieving the MCID in the postoperative 6MWD among patients with LSS. ES stabilizes and controls lumbar spine movement and may be a crucial factor in improving the walking ability of LSS patients.
LAMA reflects intramuscular fat infiltration and thereby indicates reduced muscle quality [18]. Healthy ES muscles are characterized by a high proportion of type I fibers, which are fatigue-resistant and play an essential role in postural control and spinal stability [19]. In patients with lumbar disc herniation, fatty infiltration of the ES has been shown to cause structural alterations in the paraspinal muscles, including atrophy of type I fibers and a shift toward type II fibers [19]. Moreover, ES muscle quality has been identified as an independent predictor of poor long-term outcomes following lumbar disc herniation surgery [20]. Collectively, an increased ES LAMA ratio may lead to diminished muscle endurance and postural stability, which can adversely affect postoperative improvements in the 6MWD. These findings underscore the crucial role of preoperative ES muscle quality in determining functional recovery after surgery. In this context, preoperative physiotherapy may help promote the achievement of the MCID in patients with LSS by improving ES muscle composition. Previous studies have shown that resistance and endurance training can enhance muscle quality in the trunk and thigh muscles by increasing NAMA and reducing LAMA [21]. Based on these findings, structured preoperative interventions targeting the ES are beneficial.
Age is known to strongly influence improvements in the 6MWD [22]. Aging contributes to sarcopenia, muscle weakness, balance impairment, and cardiopulmonary limitations, all of which can hinder postoperative gait recovery [23]. Consistent with findings in the study by Takase et al. [24], our results demonstrated that younger patients were more likely to achieve the MCID in the postoperative 6MWD, underscoring the importance of considering age-related variability when planning surgical interventions for LSS.
Furthermore, patients with a shorter preoperative 6MWD showed higher MCID achievement rates, suggesting that preoperative walking capacity strongly influences the potential for improvement. This may, in part, reflect a floor effect, as patients with greater preoperative disability have more room for improvement [25]. The preoperative 6MWD of the MCID-achieved group was below 300 m, a proposed threshold for severe gait impairment [26], suggesting that this group had a higher proportion of patients with pronounced intermittent claudication. Therefore, patients with more severe preoperative gait limitations may have a greater potential to achieve meaningful postoperative improvement.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, this was a single-center retrospective study, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, CT-based muscle analysis was limited to selected axial slices and specific muscles, which may not fully represent the overall muscle condition. Third, potential confounding factors, such as physical activity, nutrition, and comorbidities, were not fully controlled. Fourth, the follow-up period was restricted to 12 months. Finally, although the 6MWD was used as a functional outcome, incorporating gait analysis and patient-reported outcomes could provide a more comprehensive evaluation of recovery.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that muscle characteristics (muscle quantity and quality) and preoperative patient functional status are important determinants of postoperative walking recovery. Reduced fatty infiltration of the ES was found to be associated with better postoperative walking recovery, highlighting the importance of preoperative assessment and optimization of trunk muscle composition. Interventions aimed at improving ES muscle quality before surgery may represent effective strategies to enhance gait recovery and long-term functional outcomes in patients with LSS.

Key Points

  • Preoperative trunk muscle quality was found to be very important for achieving good clinical results after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

  • Preoperative erector spinae muscle quality, age, and 6-meter walk distance were identified as independent predictors of achieving the minimal clinically important difference at 12 months after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

  • Preoperative rehabilitation for lumbar spinal stenosis should focus more on the trunk muscles rather than the leg muscles.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

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

Funding

This research was supported by research funds from the Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety (JPJOHAS2025FH25).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: MT (1). Data curation: SA, TK, AM, KT, YY, ADP. Investigation: MT (2). Writing–original draft: TS. Writing–review & editing: MB, JBC, SA, TK, AM, KT, YY, ADP, MT (1), MT (2). Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1
Patient selection. LSS, lumbar spinal stenosis.
asj-2025-0537f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Measurement of functional muscle cross-sectional areas. (A) The cross-sectional areas of the psoas major (green) and erector spinae (purple) at the L3 vertebral level. (B) The cross-sectional area of the multifidus (blue) at the L4 vertebral level. (C) The cross-sectional areas of the gluteus maximus (orange) and gluteus medius (pink) at the S2 vertebral level.
asj-2025-0537f2.jpg
Table 1
Comparison of preoperative patient factors, surgical factors, and clinical characteristics between the MCID-achieved and non-achieved groups
Characteristic MCID achieved (n=86) MCID not achieved (n=64) p-value
Age (yr) 71.4±8.0 76.0±6.6 <0.001
Sex 0.324
 Male 42 (49) 34 (53)
 Female 44 (51) 30 (47)
Height (cm) 160.7±9.3 158.5±9.5 0.118
Weight (kg) 63.1±9.7 63.8±10.1 0.914
Body mass index (kg/m2) 24.3±3.1 25.3±3.6 0.241
Surgical type 0.322
 Decompression 46 (53) 41 (64)
 Fusion 40 (47) 23 (36)
Surgical time (min) 119.8±56.7 115.2±52.8 0.623
Intraoperative bleeding (mL) 164.5±194.5 159.7±170.1 0.807
Operated spinal levels
 L1/2 1 (1) 0 (0) 0.317
 L2/3 11 (13) 4 (6) 0.071
 L3/4 24 (28) 24 (37) 1.000
 L4/5 60 (70) 53 (83) 0.510
 L5/S 13 (15) 8 (13) 0.275
Schizas classification 0.346
 A (1–4) 8 (10) 2 (3)
 B 26 (30) 23 (36)
 C 38 (44) 25 (39)
 D 14 (16) 14 (22)
VAS LBP (mm) 41.6±31.6 38.7±31.2 0.510
VAS LP (mm) 53.8±30.7 43.8±30.9 0.033
VAS LN (mm) 46.4±31.5 38.4±33.7 0.143
ZCQ SSS (points) 3.2±0.5 3.0±0.7 0.019
ZCQ PFS (points) 2.8±0.6 2.5±0.6 <0.001
Preoperative 6MWD (m) 262.8±105.8 303.3±104.2 0.031

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation for continuous variables and number (%) for categorical variables.

MCID, minimal clinically important difference; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; LBP, low back pain; LP, leg pain; LN, leg numbness; ZCQ, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; SSS, symptom severity score; PFS, physical function score; 6MWD, 6-minute walking distance.

Table 2
Comparison of preoperative muscle composition between MCID-achieved and MCID-not-achieved groups
LAMA ratio MCID achieved (n=86) MCID not achieved (n=64) p-value
PM 0.1±0.1 0.2±0.1 <0.001
ES 0.2±0.2 0.3±0.2 <0.001
MF 0.4±0.2 0.5±0.2 <0.001
GM 0.4±0.2 0.5±0.2 <0.001
GMed 0.1±0.1 0.2±0.1 <0.001

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

MCID, minimal clinically important difference; low-attenuation muscle area; PM, psoas major; ES, erector spinae; MF, multifidus; GM, gluteus maximus; GMed, gluteus medius.

Table 3
Univariate logistic regression analysis for MCID achievement
Variable Odds ratio (95% CI) p-value
Age (yr) 0.92 (0.88–0.96) <0.001
Sex (male vs. female) 1.24 (0.64–2.38) 0.527
Height (cm) 1.02 (0.98–1.06) 0.172
Weight (kg) 0.99 (0.96–1.02) 0.676
Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.91 (0.83–1.01) 0.072
Surgical type (fusion vs. decompression) 1.55 (0.80–3.01) 0.195
Surgical time (min) 1.00 (1.00–1.01) 0.613
Intraoperative bleeding (mL) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.875
Operated spinal levels (vs. non-operated)
 L2/3 0.30 (0.08–1.12) 0.074
 L3/4 1.33 (0.69–2.73) 0.373
 L4/5 1.52 (0.70–3.28) 0.288
 L5/S 0.63 (0.24–1.67) 0.354
Schizas classification (vs. A)
 B 0.28 (0.05–1.47) 0.133
 C 0.38 (0.07–1.94) 0.245
 D 0.25 (0.04–1.39) 0.114
VAS LBP (mm) 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.589
VAS LP (mm) 1.01 (1.00–1.02) 0.057
VAS LN (mm) 1.01 (1.00–1.02) 0.148
ZCQ SSS (points) 2.02 (1.07–3.84) 0.030
ZCQ PFS (points) 2.29 (1.28–4.12) <0.001
Preoperative 6MWD (m) 1.00 (0.99–1.00) 0.022
LAMA ratio
 PM 0.01 (0.01–0.30) <0.001
 ES 0.03 (0.01–0.19) <0.001
 MF 0.07 (0.01–0.33) <0.001
 GM 0.13 (0.03–0.54) <0.001
 GMed 0.01 (0.01–0.198) <0.001

MCID, minimal clinically important difference; CI, confidence interval; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; LBP, low back pain; LP, leg pain; LN, leg numbness; ZCQ, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; SSS, symptom severity score; PFS, physical function score; 6MWD, 6-minute walking distance; NAMA, normal-attenuation muscle area; LAMA, low-attenuation muscle area; PM, psoas major; ES, erector spinae; MF, multifidus; GM, gluteus maximus; GMed, gluteus medius.

Table 4
Logistic regression analysis for MCID achievement
Variable Odds ratio (95% CI) p-value
Age (yr) 0.90 (0.84–0.95) <0.001
ZCQ PFS (points) 2.06 (0.89–4.77) 0.093
Preoperative 6MWD (m) 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 0.016
ES (LAMA ratio) 0.69 (0.53–0.86) <0.001

MCID, minimal clinically important difference; CI, confidence interval; ZCQ, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; PFS, physical function score; 6MWD, 6-minute walking distance; ES, extensor strength; LAMA, low-attenuation muscle area.

References

1. Steurer J, Nydegger A, Held U, et al. LumbSten: the lumbar spinal stenosis outcome study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:254. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-254
crossref pmid pmc
2. Otani K, Kikuchi S, Yabuki S, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis has a negative impact on quality of life compared with other comorbidities: an epidemiological cross-sectional study of 1862 community-dwelling individuals. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:590652. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/590652
crossref pmid pmc
3. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:1424–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016
crossref pmid
4. Kowalski KL, Mistry J, Beilin A, Goodman M, Lukacs MJ, Rushton A. Physical functioning in the lumbar spinal surgery population: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of outcome measures and measurement properties of the physical measures. PLoS One 2024;19:e0307004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307004
crossref pmid pmc
5. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:796–803. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004
crossref pmid
6. Sakaguchi T, Tanaka M, Patel J, et al. Minimal clinically important difference in the six-minute walking distance 12 months after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. Cureus 2025;17:e81153. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.81153
crossref pmid pmc
7. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
crossref pmid
8. McIlroy S, Mah Y, Tahtis V, et al. Minimal clinically important difference of the 6-Minute Walk Test and daily step count at 3 months following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2025 Jul 15 [Epub]https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09085-4
crossref
9. Sakaguchi T, Tanaka M, Arataki S, et al. Preoperative leg muscle quality association functional recovery after adult spinal deformity surgery: a propensity-score-matched study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2025;61:980. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61060980
crossref pmid pmc
10. Kawano T, Nankaku M, Murao M, et al. Impact of preoperative skeletal muscle quality on functional outcome in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2025;26:105396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105396
crossref pmid
11. Han G, Wu H, Dai J, et al. Does paraspinal muscle morphometry predict functional status and re-operation after lumbar spinal surgery?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2023;33:5269–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09548-6
crossref pmid pmc
12. Lawan A, Crites Videman Z, Belay A, et al. Are paraspinal muscle morphology and composition associated with lumbar spinal stenosis?: a systematic review. Spine J 2025;25:1794–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.01.027
crossref pmid
13. Caprariu R, Oprea MD, Poenaru DV, Andrei D. Correlation between preoperative MRI parameters and Oswestry Disability Index in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023;59:2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59112000
crossref pmid pmc
14. Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, et al. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1919–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d359bd
crossref pmid
15. Kim DW, Kim KW, Ko Y, et al. Assessment of myosteatosis on computed tomography by automatic generation of a muscle quality map using a web-based toolkit: feasibility study. JMIR Med Inform 2020;8:e23049. https://doi.org/10.2196/23049
crossref pmid pmc
16. Kim HK, Kim KW, Kim EH, et al. Age-related changes in muscle quality and development of diagnostic cutoff points for myosteatosis in lumbar skeletal muscles measured by CT scan. Clin Nutr 2021;40:4022–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.04.017
crossref pmid
17. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;48:452–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244
crossref pmid
18. Kim HK, Kim CH. Quality matters as much as quantity of skeletal muscle: clinical implications of myosteatosis in cardiometabolic health. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) 2021;36:1161–74. https://doi.org/10.3803/enm.2021.1348
crossref pmid pmc
19. Kalichman L, Carmeli E, Been E. The association between imaging parameters of the paraspinal muscles, spinal degeneration, and low back pain. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:2562957. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2562957
crossref pmid pmc
20. Carvalho V, Santos J, Santos Silva P, Vaz R, Pereira P. Relationship between fatty infiltration of paraspinal muscles and clinical outcome after lumbar discectomy. Brain Spine 2022;2:101697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.101697
crossref pmid pmc
21. Madrid DA, Beavers KM, Walkup MP, et al. Effect of exercise modality and weight loss on changes in muscle and bone quality in older adults with obesity. Exp Gerontol 2023;174:112126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2023.112126
crossref pmid pmc
22. Takenaka H, Sugiura H, Kamiya M, et al. Predictors of walking ability after surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a prospective study. Spine J 2019;19:1824–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.07.002
crossref pmid
23. Nagai S, Kawabata S, Michikawa T, et al. Association between frailty and locomotive syndrome in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective longitudinal analysis. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024;24:116–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14785
crossref pmid
24. Takase K, Kawabata S, Michikawa T, et al. Age diversity among older surgically treated patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative study of early and late older adults. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2025;26:209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08456-8
crossref pmid pmc
25. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:171–84. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9
crossref pmid
26. Rens N, Gandhi N, Mak J, et al. Activity data from wearables as an indicator of functional capacity in patients with cardiovascular disease. PLoS One 2021;16:e0247834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247834
crossref pmid pmc
TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+ Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 530 View
  • 24 Download
Related articles in ASJ

Comparison of topical and intravenous tranexamic acid for reducing postoperative blood loss in single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study from Japan2025 August;19(4)



ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail: asianspinejournal@gmail.com                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
82, Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 13620, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail: office@spine.or.kr                

Copyright © 2026 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next