الفهرس 
introductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 140 |  |  |
| | | from | 140 | | |
Abstract
The importance of the size and shape of the spinal canal in relation to the occurrence of symptoms of cord or root compression has been recognised for some time (Jones and Thomson, 1968).
In 1911, Bailey and Casamajor described a patient with pain in the lower limb and a weak left leg. Laminectomy revealed thickened laminae and no other explanation of the disorder could be detected. They stated that the spinal cord and the nerves of the cauda equina seemed susceptible to compression by arthritic abnormalities. They emphasized the role of bony exostosis from articular processes and abnormalities of the ligamenta flava that compressed the spinal roots from behind (Ehni, 1969).
In 1934, Cramer described 26 patients presumably those who had been operated upon by Elsberg and regarded as examples of the peculiar disease, which later came to be called cauda equina radiculitis. He suggested that this syndrome was secondary to arthritic changes in the spine, for this is well marked in 2/3 of the cases, all of the cases improved following laminectomies (Ehni, 1969).
In 1952, Huizinga, Heiden and Vinken made charts of the normal maximum and minimum antero-psoterior measurements of the lumbar canal in human skeletons. In the lumbar region A-P measurements
of the spinal canal are not so widely used, partly at least because
the posterior margin of the canal is more difficult to locate in the lateral radiograph. In 1954, Verbiest stated that it was not possible to recognise the anomaly of a narrow lumbar canal on plain radiography and relied entirely on myelography. (Jones and Thomson, 1968).
On the other hand, referring to the plain rediographs, Epstein and Colleagues (1962) postulated that any anteroposterior diameter of less than 15 mm. indicated narrowing of the canal. They also measured the interpedicular distance in the lumbar region and found that the distance was at the lower limits of normal in a third of cases. (Jones and Thomson, 1968).
Moreover, Eisenstein (1975) stated that the posterior limit of the spinal canal can be determined, on the lateral plain film by a line connecting the apex of the superior to the inverted apex of the inferior articular facet.
This study was done to assess the reliability of plain radiography and lumbar myelography in the diagnosis of lumbar canal
stenosis. We studied 40 cases of lumbar canal stenosis and the results were recorded and analysed.